The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5 1109 N BROADWAYMarch 30, 2020 5 - 1 5 - 2 5 - 3 5 - 4 5 - 5 5 - 6 5 - 7 5 - 8 5 - 9 EXHIBIT 1 5 - 10 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 of 7 LS 3.23.20 RESOLUTION NO.2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ONE BROADWAY PLAZA PROJECT (SCH NO. 99101047) FOR THE ONE BROADWAY PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RE- ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, Mike Harrah, representing Caribou Industries (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2020-02 to allow the construction of a new mixed- use, 37-story residential and commercial development at 1109 North Broadway; and WHEREAS, the subject Property contains 4.34 acres currently developed with commercial office buildings and a vacant lot; and WHEREAS, the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development (SD-75) was adopted in 2004 as a result of interest in developing an office and commercial development within the Midtown Specific Plan District. The specific development zoning district for the site, which establishes land uses and development standards, allows a variety of office and commercial uses only. Such uses include approximately 490,003 square feet of office space, 10,000 square feet of retail space and 18,000 square feet of restaurant dining area (“Current Entitlements”); and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.99101047) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for One Broadway Plaza; and WHEREAS, the entitlements being sought for the proposed mixed-use development project include a general plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment to allow up to 415 residential units within approximately 19 floors of the building (“Mixed-Use Project”). The remaining space will be use as office space, commercial and restaurant areas and residential amenities; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“2004 EIR”) for the One Broadway Plaza Project (“Originally Approved Plan”), which analyzed the potentially significant environmental impacts of an office and commercial tower, and 5 - 11 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2004 EIR, the subject site is entitled to be developed with a development consisting of office and commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Current Entitlements could be developed without any further discretionary permits issued by the City; and WHEREAS, when compared against the Originally Approved Plan, the revised mixed-use development will not result in any new or intensified significant impacts; and WHEREAS, when compared against the Originally Approved Plan, the Mixed- Use Project represents a reduction of approximately 254,000 square feet of office use and the addition of up to 415 residential units; no change to the retail or dining uses will occur. The only revision is to permit residential uses in place of some of the permitted office use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an EIR has already been certified, the Lead Agency is prohibited from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless at least one of the circumstances identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the proposed project and considered whether, in light of the impacts associated with its development, any supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15162; and WHEREAS, the analysis contained in the One Broadway Plaza EIR Addendum (“2020 Addendum”) concluded that none of the circumstances described in Public Resources Code section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred, and thus no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2020 at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the 2020 Addendum and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project and 2020 Addendum to the certified EIR; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 5 - 12 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 of 7 SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the 2004 EIR and the 2020 Addendum, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. The City Council further finds that the 2020 Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the 2020 Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment. SECTION 3. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the 2004 EIR and the 2020 Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the changes to the subject property, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because: (a) The Mixed-Use Project does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the 2004 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Mixed-Use Project will be developed that would require major revisions of the 2004 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. (c) New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2004 EIR was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt. 5 - 13 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 of 7 SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures identified in the 2004 EIR remain applicable to the One Broadway Plaza mixed-use development. These findings are laid out more specifically in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City Council therefore hereby re- adopts those mitigation measures identified as remaining applicable to One Broadway Plaza, through the MMRP attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the 2020 Addendum to the EIR, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. SECTION 6. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 7. The City Council directs staff to prepare, execute and file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the Orange County Clerk’s Office within five working days of the City Council’s approval of the One Broadway Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project. SECTION 8. The 2004 EIR and the 2020 Addendum to the EIR, and any other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file, are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review online and at Santa Ana City Hall, Planning and Building Agency, M20, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. The custodian of these records is Daisy Gomez, City Clerk for the City. 5 - 14 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 of 7 SECTION 9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________, 2020. _______________________ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2020-_____ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on __________________, 2020. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 5 - 15 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The 2004 One Broadway Plaza EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/onebroadwayplaza-environmental-impact-report Or by visiting: Planning and Building Agency – Planning Division Public Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 5 - 16 55394.00053\32005762.1 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT B ONE BROADWAY PLAZA EIR ADDENDUM The One Broadway Plaza Project EIR Addendum and Technical Appendices are available online at: https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-projects-and- documents/onebroadwayplaza Or by visiting: Planning and Building Agency – Planning Division Public Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 5 - 17 EXHIBIT 2 5 - 18 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 1 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-01 AMENDING THE ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1109 NORTH BROADWAY WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1998, the City of Santa Ana adopted the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Mike Harrah and Caribou Industries (“Applicant”) seeks to develop One Broadway Plaza as a mixed-use development Project (“proposed Project”), originally proposed as a 37-story, 518,000 square foot office tower project on a 4.34- acre site at 1109 North Broadway in Santa Ana, California (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, due to shifting economic conditions, the Applicant has proposed modifications to the original proposal that was adopted by City Council in 2004 and approved via a citywide referendum in April 2005; and WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails the construction of a (1) 37-story, 518,000 square foot tower that will include office, commercial and residential uses; and (2) a nine-story (one underground), 2,463 space parking structure for the project, and; (3) redevelopment of the remaining structures on the site for office and commercial uses. (4) approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01, which would maintain the Project Site’s existing land use designation of One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) but allow residential uses on the site; and (5) approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2020-02, which would modify the Specific Development No. 75 (SD-75) zoning of the Project Site to allow residential uses; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment would update text portions of the City’s Land Use Element to reflect this change in order to allow for development of the mixed -use Project; and 5 - 19 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 2 of 8 WHEREAS, Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 1999-01 (“2020 Addendum to EIR”) analyzed the impacts related to the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City invited recognized Native American tribes to engage in consultation regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the following environmental documents have been prepared and made available to the public: Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1999-01 for the One Broadway Plaza Project, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the 2020 Addendum to the EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in these documents and the administrative record for the Project, including all oral and written comments received. Based on the foregoing, the City Council find that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further recommends that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance”, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines has been received by the City that would require re-circulation of the EIR. Therefore, the City Council adopts the 2020 Addendum to the EIR and re-adopts the MMRP. SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to the Land Use Element and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The General Plan Amendment, 2020 Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available for public review online and at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. SECTION 4. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, 5 - 20 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 3 of 8 and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana in that: A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan. B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the goals/objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following reasons: i. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project is One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC), which allows business and professional offices as well as commercial uses with a floor area ratio of 2.9. In order to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use project, the proposed amendment maintains the OPBDC designation but is amended to also allow residential uses. ii. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan. Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian-oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. The Project will provide up to 415 rental housing units. The amendment will provide a residential development that will support a mixed-use environment. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. 5 - 21 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 4 of 8 LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote the City’s image as a regional activity center. LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The Project is within ½ mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service throughout California; and the project is in close proximity to the Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Broadway and Main Street are within a major urban corridor that has cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations (Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall, and in the City of Orange the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph’s Hospital of Orange County). Therefore, the residential development would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich central area of the City. The development will complement the nearby mid-rise office buildings located along Broadway and Main Street to the east of the site. The residential use is consistent with the residential uses in the surrounding areas. Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The building will be of high quality design and include high quality materials such as decorative glass and metal panels/accents. The building is designed with a major courtyard at the ground level to enhance the experience of the building. The Project is adjacent to 5 - 22 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 5 of 8 Main Street, which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and is an opportunity to establishment a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The new development will include public art, convey a sense of place, and contribute to the urban image for the City. Finally, the Project promotes elements of a Gateway into Downtown by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. C. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment will not result in incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. SECTION 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council hereby takes the following action: 1. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 5 - 23 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 6 of 8 Program, the Land Use Element map and text shall be amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2020-02 is approved by the City Council. SECTION 7. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk attest and certify to the adoption thereof. ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________, 2020. _______________________ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers __________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers __________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers __________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers __________________________________ 5 - 24 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 7 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________, 2020, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 5 - 25 Resolution No. 2020-xx Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5 - 26 EXHIBIT 3 5 - 27 Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 1 of 3 LS 3.23.20 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 75 (SD- 75) TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ONE BROADWAY PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1109 NORTH BROADWAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved the Specific Development No. 75 zoning designation to allow the development of a 37-story office and commercial office tower at 1109 North Broadway. B. The Specific Development No. 75 (SD-75) zoning became effective on April 5, 2005, after a citywide referendum to overturn the City’s approval was defeated. C. Over the past 16 years, the developer has made several attempts to construct the entitled office tower. Due to various economic conditions and constraints, the tower has yet to be built. D. In January 2020, the developer submitted a revised plan that would reduce the overall office square footage in the tower and replace it with residential units. E. The proposed amendment would allow up to 415 residential units within the tower and adopt a series of residential development standards for the project. F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2020 regarding this ordinance and recommended that the City Council adopt the amended ordinance. G. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this ordinance on April 21, 2020, and has considered all testimony presented thereto. 5 - 28 Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 2 of 3 Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, lead agencies are required to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the 2004 EIR and the 2020 Addendum, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. The City Council further finds that the 2020 Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment. Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the amendments to Specific Development No. 75 (SD-75), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause 5 - 29 Ordinance No. NS-XXXX Page 3 of 3 phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________, 2020. _______________________ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By:________________________ Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers __________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers __________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers __________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers __________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________, 2020, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 5 - 30 EXHIBIT 4 5 - 31 3/13/2020 . apps.spatialstream.com/production/dashboard/8/9/0/CurrentBuild/html/Reporting.html#1/1 GPA NO. 2020-01 AND ZOA NO. 2020-02, ONE BROADWAY PLAZA1109 NORTH BROADWAY EXHIBIT 3 - VICINITY ZONING AND AERIAL VIEW © 2020 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved. Santa Ana Boundary Zoning 250 feet 5 - 32 EXHIBIT 5 5 - 33 NEW SIGNALMODIFICATIONNEW SIGNALMODIFICATIONNEW SIGNALMODIFICATIONNEW SIGNALMODIFICATIONNEW SIGNALMODIFICATIONREMOVE ON-STREET PARKING STALLS AND METERS(CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TO BUFFALO STREET)PROVIDE 3 NORTHBOUND AND 2 SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL LANESRAISEDMEDIANLAWNCURBWATERFEATURETYP.S20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"15'12'-0"R30'-0"R65'-0"MAIN ST.SYCAMORE ST.CLCLWASHINGTONST.10thST.CLCLWASHINGTONST.CLC10th ST.L10th ST.HALESWORTH ST.BROADWAYLCSYCAMORE ST.LC10th ST.MAIN ST.EXISITNG 11 STORYONE BLOCK TO CIVIC CENTERSYCAMORE ST.WASHINGTON ST.16'-5"7'-4"20'-0"STREET C.L. (PER IMPROVEMENT PLANS)SURVEY C.L. (PER RECORD MAPS)1000/1010/1018/1104/1110N. MAIN STREETORANGE COUNTY HIGHSCHOOL OF THE ARTSARTWORKLOCATIONCONTROLLEDINTERSECTION.EXISTING 4WAY TRAFFICLIGHT SIGNALOCHSA PARKINGOCHSA PARKINGNO RIGHT TURNSONE WAY ONLYONE WAY ONLY1109 N. BROADWAY2-STORY COMM/RES.PUBLIC1211 N. BROADWAY2-STORY COMM/RESGARAGE1115-1117 N.BROADWAY1+2 STORYCOMM/RES1111 N.BROADWAY1 STORYCOMMERCIALEXISTING1103 N. BROADWAY2.5-STORYCOMM/RES.1302-08 N. BROADWAY2 STORY COMM/RES.STUCCOROOF: PITCHED/TILE1205 N. BROADWAY1+2-STORYCOMM/RES.SETBACKEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING1206 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMM/RES.WD/FRAMEDROOF: PITCHEDASPHALT SHINGLE825 N. BROADWAYSTREET2 STORY COMMERCIAL219-23 W.WASHINGTON2 STORYRESIDENTIALBRICKROOF FLAT/TAR213-15 W. WASHINGTON2-STORY RESIDENTIALWD/STUCCOROOF: PITCHED/ASPHALT SHINGLE1228 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMM/RES.STUCCOROOF:PITCHED/TILE1228 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMMERCIALSTUCCOROOF:PITCHED/TILE1224-26 N.BROADWAY1-STORYCOMMERCIALCONCRETE BLOCKROOF:FLAT-PARAPET/TAR1220-22 N.BROADWAY1-STORYCOMMERCIALCONC. BLOCKROOFFLAT-PARAPET/TAR1212 N. BROADWAY2-STORY COMMERCIALBRICK/STUCCOROOFFLAT/TAR&COPPER1202 N.BROADWAY1-STORYCOMM/RESBRICKROOFFLAT/TAR1020 N. BROADWAY4-STORY COMMERCIALCONC. ROOF: FLAT/TAR1016 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMMERCIALBRICKROOF: FLAT/TAR1010 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMM/RES.WD/FRAMEDROOF:PITCHEDASPHALTSHINGLE1008 N.BROADWAY2-STORYCOMM/RES.WD/FRAMEDROOF: PITCHEDASPHALT SHINGLE1002 N.BROADWAY3 STORYCOM/RES.WD/FRAMEDROOF:PITCHED/ASPHALTSHINGLES900 N. BROADWAYEXISTING 10 STORYCOMMERCIALCONC./STEELSTRUCTUREROOF FLAT/COMCPAVEDEXISTING 7 STORYEXISTING 10 STORY9OCHSACROSSDINGGUARDOCHSACROSSDINGGUARDOCHSACROSSDINGGUARDBUS ONLY -DROP OFF& PICK UP ZONE920 N. MAIN STREET2 STORY COMMERCIALOCHSASYMPHONY HALLLAWNCURBL=11.45'R=15.0043°45'03"AREA = 211,553 SQ FT3.17'N88°54'32"W1.50'N01°22'58"E214.15'N88°54'32"W73.00'N01°08'27"E541.84'N01°08'27"E83.44'N01°08'27"E148.90'N88°37'02"W28.72'N01°07'56"E128.16'N88°54'32"W30.00'N01°07'56"E125.00'N88°50'06"W60.00'N88°54'32"W630.81'N01°07'56"E13.53'N43°53'18"W71.60'N88°52'04"WN43°44'18"W24.09'24.05'N46°06'57"E121161121111513161012LAWNCURBWATERFEATURE2219212055553 21211892314242424252525252620'-0"20'-0"SERVICEYARD287TYP.21272644342642629PARKING STRUCTUREUNDER SEPARATEPERMIT20' - 0"20' - 0"2121212120'-0" NO BUILD YARDFUTURE 40'-0" NO BUILDYARD17SETBACKSETBACK19301234579REFLECTING POOL WATER FEATURE, PROVIDE FOUNTAIN AT TWO LOCATIONS IN EACH POOL.PLAZA PAVING, COLORED CONCRETE, 2-CUSTOM COLORS IN A DIAGONAL PATTERN WITHSANDBLAST FINISH (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS).THICK SET STONE PAVING AT PERIMETER TO MATCH LOBBY STONE AND PATTERN.THICK SET STONERAISED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WITH PERIMETER BENCH.STAINLESS STEELSEAT FRAME AND WOOD SLATS.REPAIR OR REPLACE SIDEWALK TO MATCH DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE.6ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE LIGHT BOLLARDS. SEE DETAIL A5/A8.1114161718FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION.MAINTAIN ACCESS TO EXISTING DRIVE.15OFF STREET LOADING AND TRASH COMPACTOR. AS PART OFPARKING STRUCTURE. UNDER SEPARATE PERMITNEW FIRE HYDRANTUNDERGROUND FIRE WATER STORAGE TANK WITH 6" GOOSENECK VENT INPLANTER AND 24"X24" CONCRETE MAN-HOLE COVER TO MATCH PAVING.WATER FEATURE AND ROUNDABOUT PART OF OFF-SITE SCOPE OF WORK.KEYNOTES19ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE.1012' HIGH CMU SCREEN WALL WITH CEMENT PLASTER FINISH, ALUMINUM REVEALS AND STEELDOORS AND GATES. BY OTHERS UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.206" CONCRETE CURB1121NEW CURB RAMP WITH DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN.22LOADING ZONE12RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT.235'-6" HIGH CONCRETE WALL REFER TO LANDSCAPE.24EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO REMAIN (REFER TO ALTA SURVEY).25LIMIT OF WORK LINE13EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BE REMOVED.26ACCESSIBILE AND /OR EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL276'X6' LIFT STATION BASIN CONCRETE LID TO MATCH PAVING.28WATER METER VAULT29FINAL MEDIAN DESIGN/ LOCATION PER STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANSLEGENDLIMIT OF WORK LINEASSUMED PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE30EMERGENCY POWER GENERATOR FOR THE TOWER LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS.31ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE. 5' X 20' STRIPED ACCESS AISLE,2% MAX. SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. PROVIDE WHITE POST MOUNTED SIGNWITH INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY STATING "PASSENGERLOADING ONLY - NO PARKING."32HEDGE AND 36" TALL FENCE.PRIMARY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (PATH OFTRAVEL, P.O.T.) 5% MAX. SLOPE OTHER THANRAMPS. P.O.T. SHALL BE FIRM, STABLESURFACE 48" IN WIDTH MINIMUM, OF NOMORE THAN 5% SLOPE, WITH A MAXIMUMCROSS SLOPE OF 2%, HAVE NO ABRUPTLEVEL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" AT 2:1(H:V)SLOPE (EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES OF1/4" AND LESS MAY BE VERTICAL).SITE ACCESS LEGENDMAJOR ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRYMINOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 5% MAX. SLOPEOTHER THAN RAMPS.MINOR ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRY(TO INDIVIDUAL UNIT OR SPACE)BUILDING SERVICE / MAINTENANCEENTRY (ACCESSIBLE)SREQUIRED 60" SQUARE DOOR LANDINGW/ 2% MAX SLOPESIGNAGE:SIGNAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCEWITH SPEC SECTION 10430 AND SIGNAGE NOTESSHEET A0.3.P.O.T. SLIP - RESISTANCE:REFER TO SHEET A0.3 WALKS & SIDEWALKSNOTE 8, a., b. PATH OF TRAVEL TO BE AT LEASTAS SLIP- RESISTANT AS MEDIUM BROOM (1/8" TO1/16" AMPLITUDE) AT STEEPER SLOPE.CERTIFIED NOTE:THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF OURKNOWLEDGE, ALL PATHS OF TRAVEL (P.O.T.)INDICATED ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CCR, T-24AS DEFINED BY THE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDINGCODE (CBC), INCLUDING ALL WALKS, CURBRAMP(S), LIFT(S), AMD ELEVATOR(S) (AS APPLY).THE CONTRACOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THEINDICATED PATH OF TRAVEL HAS BEENCONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BARRIERS, AND SHALLTAKE SUCH STEPS AS REQUIRED TO CORRECTAND DEFICIENCES FOUND.THIS MAY RESULT IN CONSTRUCTION CHANGEORDERS AS NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THENON-COMPLYING CONDITIONS.PROJECT ARCHITECT(AT TIME DOCUMENT APPROVAL)PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR(AFTER CHECKING THE SITE)LICENSEDARCHITECT MARK D. LOXSOMNo. C15422APRIL 30, 2009S TA T EOFCALIFORNIAALL IDEAS, DESIGN, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING ARE OWNED BY, AND THE PROPERTY OF CARRIER JOHNSON AND WERE CREATED, EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON, AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IDEAS, DESIGN, ARRANGEMENTS, OR PLANS SHALL BE USED BY, ORDISCLOSED TO ANYPERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CARRIER JOHNSON. FILING THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS WITH ANY PUBLIC AGENCY IS NOT A PUBLICATION OF SAME. NO COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR USE THEREOF IS PERMISSIBLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OFCARRIER JOHNSON.AS NOTEDONE BROADWAY PLAZA1001 NORTH BROADWAY PLAZA, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIAOWNER / DEVELOPERCaribou Industries4788.00PROJECT NO:SCALE:TITLE:DRAWN BY:PLOT DATE:DRAWING NO:CHECKED BY:ISSUES:carrierjohnsonarchitecture for urban environments275b mccormick ave. costa mesa ca 92626phone 714.432.8756 | fax 714.432.8956FOUNDATION PERMIT11/15/06SUPER STRCT PERMIT 01/16/07CITY RESUBMITTAL 05/02/07CITY RESUBMITTAL 10/25/07CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/04/08PERMIT SET 05/16/08SITE PLAN08-30-06A1.008/30/06 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT0'20'40'80'160'PLAN NORTHTRUE NORTHEXISTING 9 STORY1200 N. MAIN STREET9-STORY COMMERCIAL2-STORY CONC.PARKING5 - 34 EXHIBIT 6 5 - 35 6 7 5.8 01 0" 02 13' - 4" 03 26' - 8" 04 40' - 0" 05 53' - 4" 06 66' - 8" 07 80' - 0" 08 93' - 4" 09 106' - 8" 10 120' - 0" 11 133' - 4" 12 146' - 8" 14 160' - 0" 15 173' - 4" 16 186' - 8" 17 200' - 0" 18 213' - 4" 19 226' - 8" 20 240' - 0" 21 253' - 4" 22 266' - 8" 23 280' - 0" 24 293' - 4" 25 306' - 8" 26 320' - 0" 27 333' - 4" 28 346' - 8" 29 360' - 0" 30 373' - 4" 31 386' - 8" 32 400' - 0" 33 413' - 4" 34 426' - 8" 35 440' - 0" 36 453' - 4" PENTHOUSE 466' - 8" 37(Mach.) 477' - 0" 00 -12' - 0" Pit A6.23 1 SIM. LIVE PRESENTATION CORPORATE PRODUCT THEATER COLABORATIVE OFFICE SUITES WORLD CLASS ROOFTOP RESTAURANT SLINGSHOT GIGABIT CITY ON-SITE DATA CENTER MILITARY GRADE SECURITY VAULT - BASEMENT- V 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 EXECUTIVE OFFICES 37 ONE BROADWAY PLAZA L COURTYARD PROMENADE ONE BROADWAY PLAZADRAMATIC 2-STORY GLASS ENCLOSED ATRIUM ENTRANCEWITH STUNNING MONUMENT MARKER STONE WORLD CLASS ROOFTOP RESTAURANT OFFICE FLOOR PLAN & WORKSPACE BUILDING AMENITIES GRAND ENTRY FOYER & PLAZA LEVEL with MAJOR WATER FEATURES FIRST FLOOR PLAN W / PROPOSED THEATER AND ART EXHIBIT CENTER GRAND ENTRANCE FOYER (SEE SHEET A1) WELLNESS, FITNESS CENTER AND SPA PLAZA LEVEL - RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, STORES & SHOPS 11 9 7 5 3 1 10 8 6 4 2 TYPICAL HIGH-TECH, THINK TANK OFFICES CAMPUS PLAZA LEVELSTREET LEVELL RETAIL CONCOURSE WITH TRAVERTINE MARBLE WALKWAYS 17FULLERTONCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITYPLAZA LEVEL - RETAIL STORES & SHOPSCONTRACTORDEVELOPER PRESERVING THE PAST ENSURING THE FUTURE V VAULT SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION GENERAL NOTE: 493 FEET TALL 37 FLOORS AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED ORDINANCECONCEPTUAL STACKING PLANFOR RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT 3/16/20 “HISTORY IN THE MAKING” WORLD CLASS URBAN CORE MIXED USE MASTER PLAN WITH RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS THE ULTIMATE, TALLEST, GREENEST, MOST SUSTAINABLE VERTICAL SUPERSTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITY ZONE IN ORANGE COUNTY. VU“ ”VU“ ” ONE BROADWAY PLAZA 1st FLr. Mez - PLAZA Retail (Garage)8,525 RSF CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN TWO / THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN TWO / THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN LOFTS / 1 BEDROOM APARTMENTS (FLOORS 5-10) Rev. 05 5 - 36 Rev. 055 - 37 WORLD CLASS WELLNESS CENTER & SPACONTRACTORDEVELOPERPRESERVING THE PASTENSURING THE FUTUREHEATH & FITNESS WELLNESS CENTER 3RD LEVELRev. 055 - 38 VIEWHERECONTRACTORDEVELOPERPRESERVING THE PASTENSURING THE FUTUREAMENITIES 3RD LEVELA-4CLUB ROOMBUILDING AMENITIESBUSINESS CENTER CONF. ROOMRESIDENT AVAILABLE KITCHENRev. 055 - 39 Rev. 055 - 40 Rev. 055 - 41 Rev. 055 - 42 ROOFTOP RESTAURANTSTWO WORLD CLASSVIEWYOU AREHEREVIEWYOU AREHERECONTRACTORDEVELOPERPRESERVING THE PASTENSURING THE FUTURERev. 055 - 43 EXHIBIT 7 5 - 44 One Broadway Plaza Mixed-Use Development GPA No. 2020-01 and ZOA No. 2020-02 Exhibit 7 – Building Rendering 5 - 45 EXHIBIT 8 5 - 46 5 - 47 EXHIBIT 9 5 - 48 March 2020 | Addendum No. 1 to the One Broadway Plaza EIR One Broadway Plaza Project for City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Contact: Vince C. Fregoso, AICP Planning Manager 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: William Halligan, Esq., Managing Principal, Environmental Services 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 5 - 49 5 - 50 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Table of Contents March 2020 Page i Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM ............................................................. 3 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................... 4 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 13 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 15 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .............................................................................................. 17 4.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 19 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 19 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 20 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 23 5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 26 5.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 34 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 38 5.6 ENERGY ............................................................................................................................................................... 43 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 45 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 50 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 56 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................... 61 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 66 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 67 5.13 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 69 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 72 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 75 5.16 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 80 5.17 TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 81 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 90 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 91 5.20 WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................................................ 98 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................. 101 6. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................... 103 6.1 CITY OF SANTA ANA ................................................................................................................................... 103 6.2 PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................................................. 103 7. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 105 5 - 51 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Table of Contents Page ii PlaceWorks APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Memo Appendix B Project Trip Generation Memo Appendix C Water and Sewer Studies 5 - 52 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Table of Contents March 2020 Page iii List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 9 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Summary of Existing Conditions on the Project Site ..................................................................... 6 Table 2: Approved Project Land Use Summary............................................................................................ 14 Table 3 Proposed Project Buildout Comparison with Approved Project ............................................... 15 Table 4 Proposed Project Operational Emission Summary ....................................................................... 31 Table 5 Operational Emission Comparison.................................................................................................. 32 Table 6 Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza Land Uses GHG Emissions .................................. 55 Table 7 Proposed Project GHG Emissions.................................................................................................. 56 Table 8 Forecast, City of Santa Ana and Orange County ........................................................................... 73 Table 9 Proposed Project Student Generation ............................................................................................. 77 Table 10 ITE Trip Generation Rates ............................................................................................................... 83 Table 11 Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................. 83 Table 12 Trip Generation Comparison ........................................................................................................... 84 Table 13 Proposed Project Water Demand .................................................................................................... 95 Table 14 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation ...................................................................................... 95 Table 15 Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation ..................................................................................... 96 5 - 53 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Table of Contents Page iv PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 54 March 2020 Page 1 1. Introduction This Addendum to the City of Santa Ana’s 2004 certified One Broadway Plaza Environmental Impact Report (2004 Certified EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 199101047 has been prepared in accordance with Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency responsible for the EIR, and this Addendum for the proposed One Broadway Plaza Project. Caribou Industries Inc. (Applicant) proposes to revise the existing entitlements of the One Broadway Plaza Project to permit a conversion of a portion of the permitted office square footage to residential use (“Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project would incorporate residential uni ts within up to 19 floors, which were previously designated for office uses under the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would provide up to 402 apartment units for a total of approximately 254,472 residential square feet. The residential component would include penthouse suites, standard and executive residentia l units, and affordable units. The non- residential components would include office, restaurants, commercial uses, wellness fitness center w ith a spa, and a parking structure consistent with the Approved Project. 1.1 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM 1.1.1 CEQA Requirements Where a previous program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be examined in light of that EIR to determin e whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)). Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4)). Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 5 - 55 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 1. Introduction Page 2 PlaceWorks 3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. An Addendum can be prepared to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessar y but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (above) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Changes to the One Broadway Plaza (Approved Project) and regulatory conditions, described below under the Project Description would fulfill none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1)– (3) as these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the 2004 Certified EIR. Accordingly, this checklist provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the 2004 Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration): a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. 5 - 56 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 1. Introduction March 2020 Page 3 e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agen cy's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, the City of Santa Ana has determined that 1) none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplement to an EIR have occurred, and 2) the circumstances described in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines exist. Therefore, an Addendum to the One Broadway Plaza EIR has been deemed appropriate. 1.1.2 Scope of Analysis in This Addendum Changes to the One Broadway Plaza EIR (“Certified EIR”) and regulatory conditions, described below under the Project Description would fulfill none of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guideli nes Sections 15162(a)(1)–(3) as these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the 2004 Certified EIR. Accordingly, this checklist provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and a n addendum to the 2004 Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address chang es to the project. In order to implement the Proposed Project, a number of discretionary approvals from the City of Santa Ana are required, including a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75). As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Santa Ana is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with these discretionary approval s. The scope of the review for project-related impacts for this Addendum is limited to differences between impacts analyzed by the Certified EIR for implementation of the One Broadway Plaza Project (Approved Project) and the Proposed Project. The Approved Project will serve as the “baseline” for the environmental impact analysis. The baseline includes all applicable mitigation measures from the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), approved in conjunction with the Certified EIR. As required by CEQA, this Addendum also addresses changes in circumstances or new information that would potentially involve new environmental impacts. 1.2 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM This Addendum relies on the City of Santa Ana’s CEQA checklist, which addresses environmental issues section by section. T he completed checklist is included in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic has the following subheadings: ▪ Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (including the One Broadway Plaza EIR, and previous CEQA documentation; see description under Subsection 3.1, Project Background, of this Addendum) ▪ Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project (including environmental checklist) ▪ Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project 5 - 57 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 1. Introduction Page 4 PlaceWorks 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION For a detailed description of adopted land use planning documents that apply to the Certified EIR and associated environmental documentation, see Section 3.1, Project Background, of this Addendum. 5 - 58 March 2020 Page 5 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION 2.1.1 One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) The One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) is located in the central portion of the City of Santa Ana in Orange County, California. The District is approximately 0.5 miles southwest from the I-5 Freeway and approximately 10 miles northeast from the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The District is generally bound by Washington Avenue to the north, Sycamore Street to the east, 10th Street to the south, and N. Broadway to the west. The Project Site is currently developed with seven existing structures, six of which are designated as historic. One parcel on this block is not a part of the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District and is located along N. Broadway and is zoned Midtown Specific Plan (SP 3). The One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District zoning allows for certain types of office uses, service and commercial retail, cafés and restaurants, florists, pharmacies, d ay care facilities, museums, libraries and galleries, and artists’ studios along with other uses with the approval of a conditional use permit. The objectives of the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District is to create a landmark office project al ong Broadway, maintain the existing streetscape, maintain the scale and character established by the existing historic structures along the north end of the district, maintain large open setbacks adjacent to Broadway, encourage revitalization of existing p roperties; and enhance the pedestrian experience. 2.1.2 Midtown Specific Plan (SP 3) The Midtown Specific Plan area is roughly bound by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center Drive to the south, mid-block between Bush Street and Spurgeon Street to the east, and midblock between Broadway and Durant Street to the west. One parcel on the Project Site is zoned Midtown Specific Plan. The vision for the Midtown Specific Plan is a “thriving and integrated district of civic, business, cultural, and retail activity with a small residential component.” 2.1.3 Project Site The Project Site is located within one city block on Broadway Street between 10th Street and Washington Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Project Location. The Project Site is comprised of three parcels with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 398-561-18 (1211 N. Broadway); 398-561-02 (1205 N. Broadway); and 398-561-03 (1205 N Broadway) (Orange County 2019). The Project Site is approximately 0.5 miles west of the I-5 Freeway and approximately 0.7 miles from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. The Project Site is approximately 4.32 acres. No changes to the Project Site boundaries are contemplated as part of the Proposed 5 - 59 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 2. Environmental Setting Page 6 PlaceWorks Project. The Project Site is generally flat and the southern portion of the Project Site is currently under construction to implement the Approved Project. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning The Project Site includes the entirety of the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District, and one parcel on the Project Site is not part of the District (parcel with APN 398-561-03). The portion of the Project Site within the District (parcels with APNs 398-561-18 and 398-561-02) is zoned Specific Development 75 (SD 75), One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District, with a corresponding General Plan land use designation of One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC). The parcel with APN 398-561-03 is zoned Midtown Specific Plan (SP 3) with a General Plan land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO). The largest parcel on the Project Site, with APN 398-561-18, includes six one- to two-story residential structures some of which have been converted to commercial and office uses along Broadway; a one -story commercial building located at the southwest corner of Washingto n Avenue and Sycamore Street; surface parking lots; and a graded/construction area on the southern portion of the site associated with the Approved One Broadway Plaza project. Parcels 398-561-02 and -03 are developed with one two-story story residential/office building located at 1205 N. Broadway. Table 1 summarizes property information and existing conditions on site. Table 1 Summary of Existing Conditions on the Project Site Parcel APN Address Existing Designations Description Land Use Zoning 398-561-18 1211 N. Broadway One Broadway Plaza District Center Specific Development 75 (SD 75) • Six one- to two-story residential structures some of which have been converted to commercial and office uses along Broadway; • A one-story commercial building located at the southwest corner of Washington Avenue and Sycamore Street; surface parking lots; and • A graded/construction area on the southern portion of the District associated with the Approved One Broadway Plaza project. 398-561-02 1205 N. Broadway One Broadway Plaza District Center Specific Development 75 (SD 75) • A two-story single-family residence/office with stand-alone parking garage on the southeast corner of the lot. 398-561-03 1205 N. Broadway Professional & Administration Office Midtown Specific Plan (SP 3) 5 - 60 PlaceWorks Figure 1 - Regional Location Map ONE BROADWAY PLAZA PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF SANTA ANA Source: ESRI, 2020 0 Scale (Miles) 3 Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white. Project SiteProject SiteCounty of Los AngelesCounty of Los AngelesCounty of Orange CountyCounty of Orange CountyCo u n t y o f S a n B e r n a r d i n o Co u n t y o f S a n B e r n a r d i n o Co u n t y o f O r a n g e C o u n t y Co u n t y o f O r a n g e C o u n t y 5 - 61 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 2. Environmental Setting Page 8 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 62 PlaceWorks Figure 2 - Project Location ONE BROADWAY PLAZA PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF SANTA ANA Source: Nearmap, 2020 0 Scale (Feet) 120 W Washington AveW Washington Ave N Sycamore StN Sycamore StN BroadwayN BroadwayW 10th StW 10th St W Washington AveW Washington Ave Halesworth StHalesworth St Project Boundary 5 - 63 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 2. Environmental Setting Page 10 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 64 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 2. Environmental Setting March 2020 Page 11 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The Project Site is located on one City block that is surrounded by the parcels zoned Midtown Specific Plan (SP 3). The Midtown Specific Plan area is roughly bound by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center Drive to the south, mid-block between Bush Street and Spurgeon Street to the east, and midblock between Broadway and Durant Street to the west. General Plan land uses that make up the Midtown Specific Plan include: General Commercial (GC), Professional & Administration Office (PAO), and District Center (D C). The Midtown Specific Plan area is developed with a range of commercial uses, educational facilities, multi-family residential, single-family residential, and Orange County services. Outside the Midtown Specific Plan area and surrounding the Project Site, Two-Family Residence (R2), Multiple- Family Residence (R3), Professional (P), and Open Space (O) land use designations are located to the west of the Project Site; Community Commercial (C1) and Arterial Commercial land use designations are located along 17th Street to the north; Multiple-Family Residence (R3) and French Park Historical District (Specific Development No. 19) are located to the east; and the Transit Zoning Code (Specific Development No. 84) is located to the south. The Midtown Specific Plan parcels that surround the Project Site have a land use designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to the north, east and west; District Center (DC) to the south; and General Commercial (GC) to the northeast. A two-story multi-family residential building and a surface parking lot is located to the north of the Project Site, across 10th Street. Orange County services and the Orange County School of the Arts is located to the east of the Project Site, across Sycamore Street. A surface parking lot is located to the south of the Project Site, across W. Washington Avenue. Commercial uses and multi-family residential uses are located across Broadway to the west of the Project Site. 2.2.3 Local and Regional Access Access to the Project Site is provided by the surrounding street grid system. Direct access to the Project Site is provide from Broadway (on the western side of the Project Site), Washington Avenue (on the northern side of the Project Site), and Sycamore Street on the eastern side of the Project Site. The Santa Ana Freeway (I-5 Freeway) provides regional access to the Project Site and is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project Site. 2.2.4 Public Transit Consistent with statewide mandates (see AB 32, SB 375, SB 743) and SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS to place increased density near major transportation and employment centers, the Proposed Project would introduce a residential use within an approved office tower, which would provide for a mixed-use project. The Proposed Project would place residents in the immediate vicinity of governmental offices, professional offices, shops and services, restaurants; and would be within walking distance to public transit opportunities. Bus routes serving the project area include OCTA routes 53/53X, 55, 60, 83, 150, 560, and 862. These routes provide connections to several areas countywide. In addition, the Project Site is about 0.7 miles west from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Station, which is served by regional trains including Amtrak and Metrolink, and bus lines such 5 - 65 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 2. Environmental Setting Page 12 PlaceWorks as Greyhound and several OCTA bus routes. The Proposed Project would be within walking distance of the planned OC Streetcar, expected to be in operation in 2022. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has designated the Project Site and the surrounding area as a Transit Priority Area (TPA). 2.2.5 General Plan and Zoning Santa Ana General Plan The Project Site’s existing General Plan designation is One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) in the City’s General Plan Land Use map. The One Broadway Plaza is “envisioned as a landmark professional office complex that will be a focal point in the Downtown Redevelopment area serving the Civic Center. complex, Downtown, and Midtown urban areas.” This land use designation allows for high intensity offices with restaurant and ancillary retail. The OBPDC does not allow for residential. Zoning The Project Site is within the Specific Development 75 zone (SD75), One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District, which is intended to “establish a professional district that will exclusively entitle a 37 - story 518,003 square foot office tower at the northeast corner of Tenth Street and Broadway within a historic setting further north along Broadway to Washington Avenue.” The Specific Development No. 75 Amendment Application was adopted by City Council in April 2004. The Development Standards requires a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.9, an office tower of approximately 493 feet above grade, and a minimum of 2,463 parking spaces. The One Broadway Plaza District does not allow for residential uses. 2.2.6 Environmental Resources The Project Site has been developed, paved, landscaped and/or graded, and supports non-native, landscape plant species. The Project Site is in an urbanized area and is currently developed with a seven residential and converted residential to office buildings along Broadway, a one-story commercial building at the southwest corner of Washington Avenue and Sycamore Street, surface parking along Sycamore Street, and a construction site for the One Broadway Plaza office tower at the southern portion of the Project Site. The Project Site is located in the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District with one parcel within the Midtown Specific Plan area. Additional information regarding environmental resources —or the lack of such resources—on the Project Site can be found in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum under each respective environmental topic. 5 - 66 March 2020 Page 13 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The One Broadway Plaza EIR was certified in 2004. The primary objective of the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) is to allow for the development of the One Broadway Plaza office tower, which is intended to be a major landmark in the midtown section of the City of Santa Ana. The One Broadway Plaza specific development plan includes the following objectives: ▪ A landmark office project along Broadway at the center of the Midtown Specific Plan. ▪ Maintain the existing streetscape pattern including sidewalk design mature palm trees and historic light fixtures. ▪ Maintain the scale and character established by the existing historic structures along the north end of the district. ▪ Maintain large open setbacks adjacent to Broadway. ▪ Encourage revitalization of existing properties for a variety of professional office uses. ▪ Enhance the pedestrian experience through the development of new plaza areas and water features at the intersection of Sycamore Street and Tenth Street and Broadway and Tenth Street. 3.1.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In 2004, the City of Santa Ana certified the EIR for One Broadway Plaza (State Clearinghouse No. 199101047), herein referred to as the “Certified EIR.” The EIR determined that most potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, it concluded that the following topic areas would result in a significant unavoidable adverse impact even after mitigation: ▪ Air Quality. Air quality impacts relating to short-term construction would result in a significant impact for PM10 and NOx and operation would result in a significant impact for long -term NOx emissions. ▪ Transportation/Traffic. Implementation of the Approved Project would impact two street segments: Main Street between 17th Street and 1st Street and Broadway between Santa Clara Avenue and 1st Street, and seven intersections (Main Street & 17th Street; Broadway Street & 17th; Main Street & Washington Avenue; Broadway Street & 4th Street; 1st Street & Flower Street; Santa Ana Boulevard & Flower Street; and Fairview & 1st Street). 5 - 67 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 3. Project Description Page 14 PlaceWorks ▪ Utilities and Service Systems. The Approved Project would interfere with the transmission of television signals from area television stations. ▪ Aesthetics. The Approved Project would not be proportional to the scale of the existing land use on the Project Site and it would create shade shadows on adjacent land uses. ▪ Cultural Resources. The Approved Project would require the removal of three historic homes along Broadway. The project required a general plan amendment; amendment to the circulation element; amendment to the Midtown Specific Plan; adoption of the One Broadway Plaza Specific Devel opment Zoning District; tentative map; vacation of Sycamore Street; encroachment permits/maintenance agreement; approval of inclu sion of a portion of State-owned property; Historical Resource Commission review for demolition requests; and a State helipad permit. Therefore, implementation of the One Broadway Plaza Project, is herein referred to as the “Approved Project.” The Approved Project includes the construction of a 37 -story office building with an eight-level parking structure and the rehabilitation o f four existing structures into commercial office and restaurant offices. The Approved Project include the abandonment of Sycamore Street between 10th Street and Washington Avenue and the removal of three structures on the Project Site that are designated historically significant. The Approved Project would retain and restore one other historic structure. The Certified EIR analyzed a project size of 545,124 total square feet, which includes office, rehabilitated office, retail, formal dining, and casual dining. The Approved Project also includes an eight-level freestanding parking structure of approximately 2,500 spaces. The Approved Project does not allow for residential uses. Table 2 below summarizes the Approved Project’s land uses. Table 2: Approved Project Land Use Summary Land Use Square Feet Office Building 508,200 Rehabilitated Office 9,803 Retail 8,525 Formal Dining 15,915 Casual Dining 2,681 TOTAL 545,124 5 - 68 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 3. Project Description March 2020 Page 15 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Project seeks to revise the existing entitlements of the One Broadway Plaza Project to permit residential uses in place of some of the permitted office uses (“Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project would incorporate residential units within up to 19 floors, which were previously designated for office uses under the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would provide up to 402 apartment units for a total of about 254,472 residential square feet. Residential units would range between 500 square feet to 1,250 square feet. Under the Proposed Project, 49 percent of the office space would be dedicated to residential uses and 51 percent of the office space would remain. No changes to the retail dining square footage would occur. The residential component would include penthouse suites, standard and executive residential units, and affordable units. The non-residential components would include office, restaurants, commercial uses, and wellness fitness center with a spa, a parking structure, and live performance and presentation space. Table 3 below compares the Proposed Project buildout with the Approved Project build out. The Proposed Project would require amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use E lement and the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) to allow for the inclusion of resident ial uses. The General Plan Land Use Element would be amended to permit residential development along with associated amendments to development density and intensity as needed. The SD 75 zone would be amended to allow residential development and incorporate development standards for residential development. Table 3 Proposed Project Buildout Comparison with Approved Project Land Use Approved Project (Square Feet) Proposed Project (Square Feet) Office 508,200 253,728 Rehabilitated Office 9,803 9,803 Residential -- 254,472 Retail 8,525 8,525 Formal Dining 15,915 15,915 Casual Dining 2,681 2,681 TOTAL 545,124 545,124 3.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS This Addendum to the Certified EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future actions associated with the Proposed Project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the Proposed Project. In addition, this Addendum is the primar y reference document for the formulation and implementation of the MMRP. All th e approved, applicable measures from the Certified EIR have been incorporated into this document. This document is intended to provide sufficient information to allow the City of Santa Ana and any other permitting agencies to evaluate the potential impacts from construction and implementation of the Proposed Project. The following discretionary actions have been requested by the Project Applicant: 5 - 69 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 3. Project Description Page 16 PlaceWorks ▪ General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01. The applicant is requesting approval of a general plan amendment to allow residential uses on the Project Site. The current One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) General Plan Land Use designation does not currently allow for residential uses. ▪ Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2020-02. The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow residential uses in the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) and create development standards for residential uses including density/unit provisions. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment would also adjust FAR and revise parking requirements. The current One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75) designation does not allow for residential uses. 5 - 70 March 2020 Page 17 4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: One Broadway Plaza Project EIR Addendum 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Vince Fregoso, AICP Planning Manager (714) 667-2713 4. Project Location: The Project Site is bound by Washington Avenue to the north, Sycamore Street to the east, 10th Street to the south, and Broadway to the west. The Project Site is located in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Caribou Industries, Inc. Mike Harrah 1103 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 6. General Plan Designation: One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC); Professional & Administration Office (PAO) 7. Zoning: One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District (SD 75); Midtown Specific Plan (SP3) 8. Description of Project: The Proposed Project seeks to revise the existing entitlements of the One Broadway Plaza Project to permit residential uses in place of some of the permitted office uses (“Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project would incorporate residential uni ts within up to 19 floors and include up to 402 apartment units for a total of approximately 254,472 residential square feet. The residential component would include penthouse suites, standard and executive residential units, and affordable units. Residential unit sizes would range from 500 square feet to 1,250 square feet. 5 - 71 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 4. Environmental Checklist Page 18 PlaceWorks 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project Site is primarily surrounded by the area zoned as Midtown Specific Plan (SP3) with land use designations including General Commercial, Professional & Administration Offices, and District Center. The Project Site is surrounded by commercial uses, educational facilities, multi-family residential, single- family residential, and Orange County services. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. 5 - 72 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 4. Environmental Checklist March 2020 Page 19 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that would represent a new significant environmental effect, a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact previously identified, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analy zed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has b een addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitiga ted pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For 5 - 73 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 4. Environmental Checklist Page 20 PlaceWorks 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the p roject falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially sign ificant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklis t references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 5 - 74 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 4. Environmental Checklist March 2020 Page 21 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 5 - 75 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 4. Environmental Checklist Page 22 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 76 March 2020 Page 23 5. Environmental Analysis This section provides evidence that no new significant impacts would occur as a result of either a change to the project or a change in circumstances. In accordance with Section 21166 of CEQA and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and relevant case law, the baseline for this determination is the Approved Project. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the 2004 Certified EIR and then discuss whether or not the Proposed Project is consistent with the findings in that document. Applicable mitigation measures are referenced from the 2004 Certified EIR, are also provided in each section. As discussed previously, this document is an addendum to the 2004 Certified EIR. The Proposed Project is located in the One Broadway Plaza Specific Development Zoning District with a corresponding General Plan land use designation of One Broadway Plaza District Center. The mitigation program identified to reduce potential impacts of the Proposed Project consists of Standard Requirements (SRs) and mitigation measures (MMs). The components of the mitigation program are described below. ▪ Standard Requirements. Existing SRs are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and also serve to offset or prevent sp ecific impacts. Typical SRs include compliance with the provisions of the California and local building code s, South Coast Air Quality Management District rules, City ordinances, and local agency impact fees, among others. ▪ Mitigation Measures. Where a potentially significant environmental effect has been identified and is not reduced to a level considered less than significant through the application of SRs, mitigation measures have been provided. All applicable measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. The City may substitute, at its discretion, any mitigation measure (and timing thereof) that has: (1) The same or superior result as the original mitigation measure and (2) the same or superior effect on the environment. The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, Planning Division, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent timing” and, if deemed necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Comm ission. 5 - 77 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 24 PlaceWorks 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that the mass and scal e of the Approved Project would be taller than the existing one to two-story structures on the Project Site and surrounding buildings. The mass and scale of the Approved Project would be in contrast to the existing development pattern in the area and would be visible from many areas across Santa Ana. However, the Approved Project’s design would not visually degrade the project area, and it would not obstruct views to or from parks, open space, or landmarks as none exist near the site. The Approved Project would create shade and shadow impacts to adjacent land uses that are not impacted from shade from land uses on the Project Site. Due to the App roved Project’s size, the Certified EIR determined that impacts to visual impacts and shade pattern would be signi ficant and adverse. The office tower and parking structure would be developed with non-reflective surfaces and would result in a less than significant impact relating to glare. The Approved Project would introduce more light to the project area that could impact adjacent land uses, however implementation of mitigation measure AS -1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? x c) In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? x d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x 5 - 78 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 25 Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Proposed Project amends the entitlements for the Approved Project to allow for the development of residential units in place of some of the office square footage. The Proposed Project would not result in the development of new building square footage beyond what was previous ana lyzed in the Certified EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would result in no new impacts to scenic vistas and no mitigation measures are necessary. No changes or new information would require pre paration of a subsequent EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Proposed Project would occur within the building envelop e of the Approved Project’s office tower. The Proposed Project would not result in the development of new building square footage beyond what was previous analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not lead to the damage of scenic resources. The Proposed Project would result in no new impacts to scenic resources and no mitigation measures are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR analyzed the Approved Project’s impact on character and views, as discussed above. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area within the City of Santa Ana. The Proposed Project would amend the existing OBPDC land use and SD -75 zoning designations to allow for residential uses. With approval of the discretionary actions, the Proposed Project would b e consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the Project Site. The Proposed Project would occur within the building envelop e of the Approved Project and would not result in new or expanded construction outside of the approved office tower. In addition, pursuant to SB 743, aesthetic impacts of a mixed-use residential project on an infill site within a TPA shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new aesthetic impacts or impact regulations affecting scenic quality. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Approved Project includes office, restaurant, and retail u ses on-site with its associated parking structure. The Proposed Project would introduce residences to the previously approved office tower, which would increase the number of persons and therefore lighting on the Project Site at nighttime hours. Interior lighting emanating from residential units would be typical of residential units and would not create a substantial light 5 - 79 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 26 PlaceWorks source. As with the Approved Project, the implementation of mitigation measur e AS-1 would ensure that exterior lighting and fixtures would ensure that lighting impacts are less than significant. The Proposed Project’s would result in no changes to the non -reflective exterior building materials under the Approved Project; similarly, the Proposed Project would result in a less than signifi cant impact to glare. 5.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. AS-1 The project proponent will ensure that all outdoor lighting and fixtures, including lighting for construction, are shielded or designed and located to minimize nighttime light spillage onto adjacent uses. Outdoor fixtures will be designed to generate less than 0.25 -foot candle power of light where possible, and will direct lighting towards the interior of the project site. 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES 5.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis With respect to agricultural resources, the Initial Study concluded that the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is developed with residential and commercial uses. Soils within the Project Site are not candidates for listing as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. In addition, the Project Site does not contain land zoned for agricultural uses nor a Williamson Act contract. No agricultural uses exist on site or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to agricultural uses, and no additional analysis is required in Certified EIR. The 2004 EIR and its corresponding Initial Study did not analyze Forestry Resources. Forestry resources are discussed below. 5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental ef fects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mod el (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, incl uding the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 5 - 80 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 27 Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? x b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? x c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? x d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? x e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? x Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. As indicated above, the Project Site is not a candidate for listing as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural uses and no farmland or agricultural activity exist on -site. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not convert important farmland to a nonagricultural use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identifie d in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new in formation would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use and no active Williamson Act contract exist on site. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with agricultural zones or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Accord ingly, no 5 - 81 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 28 PlaceWorks new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project Site is in an urbanized location and does not contain forest land or timberland. The Project Site and the surrounding area are not zoned for forest land or timberland and do not contain forestland or timberland. The Proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project Site does not contain forest land. The implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project Site and surrounding area are urban and contain no farmland or forest land. The implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previou sly identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.2.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to agricultural resources are applicable to the Proposed Project. 5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that construction of the Approved Project could result in short-term air quality impacts from construction equipment and fugitive dust. Constr uction of the Approved Project would exceed SCAQMD’s emission thresholds for NOx and PM10 emissions. The Certified EIR identifies mitigation measures that would reduce impacts from construction equipment and dust to a less than significant level; however, the Approved Project’s emissions of NOx and PM10 remain significant and unavoidable. The Certified EIR determined that the long-term operation of the Approved Project could generate air quality pollutants. The Certified EIR found that long -term operation of the Approved Project would exceed SCAQMD’s emission thresholds for NOx emissions. The Certified EIR identifies mitigation measures for long- 5 - 82 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 29 term pollution; however, the Approved Project’s emissions of NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. The Approved Project would found to result in a less than significant impa ct to CO emissions (local air quality). The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project is consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. The Initial Study for the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in the significant amounts of objectionable odors or create an adverse effect. A less than significant impact would occur. 5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? x b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? x c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? x d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? x Methodology Urban Crossroads prepared a memorandum reviewing Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Proposed Project (AQ/GHG Memo). The AQ/GHG Memo is contained in Appendix A. Emissions for the Proposed Project were calculated employing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. Comments: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Air quality in Orange County is regulated by SCAQMD, which is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SCAQMD develops rules and 5 - 83 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 30 PlaceWorks regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary for over an approximately 10,743 square- mile area. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. The Proposed Project supports AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. In March of 2017, the SCAQMD Governing Board released the Final 2016 AQMP, which continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measu res to meet the NAAQS, as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. The two principal criteria for conformance with the AQMP are: 1. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. With respect to the first criterion, implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the regional significance thresholds for construction or operational activity after implementation. Therefore, the Prop osed Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. The Proposed Project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions of criteria pollutants that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timel y attainment of air quality standards beyond those impacts considered in the Certified EIR. With respect to the second criterion, implementation of the Proposed Project according to the AQ/GHG Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads would not exceed regional or local thresholds for construction or operational impacts and would therefore have less than significant impacts. The Proposed Project would not exceed SCAG’s population, housing, or employment projections. The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations nor would it result in any regional daily construction -source or operational- source emissions exceedances. The Project would support AQMP objectives to reduce trips, promote infill development, and balance jobs and housing, and would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the region’s AQMP. There would be no new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR disclosed that construction -related NOx and PM10 emissions would be significant and 5 - 84 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 31 unavoidable. Construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the building envelope of the Approved Project and would not expand the building footprint nor require additional grading or excavation . Thus, the Proposed Project’s construction-related air quality emissions would be within the scope of analysis of the Approved Project identified in the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would further incorporate all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Table 4, Proposed Project Operational Emission Summary, shows that the operational emissions of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria emissions. Table 4 Proposed Project Operational Emission Summary Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area 12.98 0.39 33.31 1.75E-03 0.18 0.18 Energy 0.35 3.11 2.13 0.02 0.24 0.24 Mobile 5.84 20.70 59.56 0.19 16.35 4.50 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 19.18 24.20 94.99 0.22 16.77 4.93 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area 12.98 0.39 33.31 1.75E-03 0.18 0.18 Energy 0.35 3.11 2.13 0.02 0.24 0.24 Mobile 5.76 21.13 58.61 0.19 16.35 4.50 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 19.10 24.63 94.05 0.21 16.77 4.93 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Further, Table 5, Operational Emission Comparison, compares peak operational-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project with peak opera tional-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. As indicated at Table 5, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in peak operational -source VOC, NOX, CO, and SOX emissions when compared to peak operational-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. The Certified EIR disclosed that operational NOx emissions from the Approved Project would be significant and unavoidable. With the Proposed Project, NOX impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The Proposed Project’s operation air quality emissions would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact relating to op erational NOx to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Proposed Project would further incorporate all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. 5 - 85 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 32 PlaceWorks Table 5 Operational Emission Comparison Operational Activities Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project 19.18 24.63 94.99 0.22 16.77 4.93 Approved One Broadway Plaza 31.60 76.10 462.20 41.30 8.50 - Difference -12.42 -51.47 -367.21 -41.08 8.27 N/A c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact relating to local carbon monoxide concentrations. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project’s CO emissions would be incompliance with the 1-hour and 8-hour state and federal standards. As discussed above, the construction of the Proposed Project would be within the envelope of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not expand the Approved Project’s building footprint or require additional grading and excavation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Proposed Project would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Initial Study to the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project’s office and commercial uses would result in a less than significant impact to objectionable odors. According to SCAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors. As such, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to objectionable odors. The Proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances (34). No changes or new information would require preparati on of a subsequent EIR. 5.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. AQ -1 Use low-emission mobile construction equipment where feasible. AQ -2 Water site and clean equipment morning and evening to comply with AQMD Fugitive Dust Measures BCM-03 and BCM-06. As part of the conditions of grading permit approval, the 5 - 86 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 33 project shall water the construction site and unpaved haul roads (with use of reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where feasible) twice daily. AQ -3 Wash off trucks leaving the site to comply with AQMD Fugitive Dust Measure BCM-01. As part of the conditions of grading permit approval, project construction contractors shall wheel wash construction equipment and cover dirt in trucks during on-road hauling. This measure is already included in the particulate emission projections in the report. Haul trucks leaving the site shall also have a minimum freeboard distance of 12”, or cover payloads. AQ -4 Sweep streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. AQ -5 Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ -6 Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. AQ -7 Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. AQ -8 Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. AQ -9 Where feasible use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. AQ -10 Where feasible utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. AQ -11 Provide on-site power sources during the early stages of the project. AQ -12 Where feasible use low emission on -site stationary equipment (e.g. clean fuels). AQ -13 Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas. AQ -14 Apply chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). AQ -15 Reestablish groundcovers on construction site through seeding and watering of the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two months or more). AQ -16 Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hour. AQ -17 Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. AQ -18 Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and provide roadway improvements at heavily congested roadways. AQ -19 Provide on-site services. 5 - 87 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 34 PlaceWorks AQ -20 Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. AQ -21 Install energy efficient street and parking lot lighting. AQ -22 Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03 to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. Introduce efficient heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. Also, incorporate appropriate passive solar design and solar heaters. This measure is intended to reduce VOC and PM10 emissions. AQ -23 Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. AQ -24 Provide local shuttle and transit shelters and ridematching services to comply with Advanced Transportation Technology ATT-02. AQ -25 Ensure efficient parking management. AQ -26 Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. Also, designate additional car pool or vanpool parking. AQ -27 Employers should provide variable work hours and telecommuting to employees to comply with Advanced Transportation Technology ATT-01. AQ -28 Provide dedicated parking spaces with electrical outlets for electrical vehicles. AQ -29 Employers should provide ridematching, guaranteed ri de home, or car pool or vanpool to employees as a part of the TDM program and to comply with the AQMP Transportation Improvements TCM-01 measure. AQ -30 Employers should provide compensation, prizes or awards to ridesharers. AQ -31 The City should synchronize traffic signals in the vicinity of the project site. AQ -32 Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Biological Resources were addressed in the Approved Project’s Initial Study. The Certified EIR identified the Project Site as being within an urbanized area. The Initial Study prepared for the Approved Project determined that Approved Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or th rough habitat modification on any species, identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status; on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; or federally protected wetlands. The Approved Project would not interfere with 5 - 88 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 35 the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildfire corridor or impede native wildlife nursery sites. The Approved Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting bi ological resources, since there are no significant biological resources on the Project Site. The Project Applicant would replace significant trees removed from the Project Site with new trees planned as part of the Approved Project’s landscaping plan. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation, or other habitat conservation plan exist on the Project Site. 5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? x e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? x 5 - 89 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 36 PlaceWorks Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? x The Project Site and the surrounding area are located in an urban area. The Project Site is fully developed and/or disturbed with converted residences, a one story commercial building, and surface parking lots. The southern portion of the Project Site is currently under construction for the Approved Project. Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project Site does not contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on these types of species. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As analyzed in the Certified EIR, the Project Site is completely developed and/or disturbed and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on these communities and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The Project Site is not in proximity to, nor does it contain federally protected wetlands or a blueline stream as defined by the Clean Water Act (USFWS 2020). Therefore, as with the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect wetlands. No impact would occur and no 5 - 90 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 37 mitigation is necessar y. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The Project Site is fully developed and/or disturbed and is located within an urbanized area. The Project Site and the surrounding area do not include wildlife habitat or native wildlife nursery sites. The Project Site is not located within a movement cor ridor for native fish or wildlife. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect these types of biological resources. No impact would occur and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Proposed Project would not result in new building square footag e beyond the approved building envelope. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in the removal of any additional trees. Operation of the One Broadway Plaza project would be required to comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance (Chapter 33, Article VII of the Municipal Code). As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur. No mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Com munity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project Site is also within an urbanized area ; and the Proposed Project would not result in construction of new building square footage beyond what was pre viously approved. As such, no impact to an adopted habitat conservation plan, NCPP, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur from implementation of the Proposed Project and no mitigation is necessary. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.4.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to biological resources are applicable to the Proposed Project. 5 - 91 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 38 PlaceWorks 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Approved Project would result in the removal of several structures that are identified as histor ic resources by the City Register of Historical Property (SARHP), including 1007-1009 N. Broadway (Yale Apartments), 1015 N. Broadway (Twist-Basler House), 1109 N. Broadway (Koenig House). Additional structures listed on the SARHP would be retained and rehabilitated including 1103 N. Broadway (McNeill-Basler House), 1115- 1117 N. Broadway (Macintosh Apartments), and 1211 N. Broadway (Kelley House). The property at 1205 N. Broadway (Walter Moore House) is also listed on the SARHP and would remain in its exist ing location; however, the house is considered out of the project and there are no plans to rehabilitate it. The Twist-Basler House, McNeill-Basler House, and Koenig House are eligible for listing on National and California Registers. The Certified EIR identifies mitigation measures to address the Approved Project’s impact on the historic resources; however, the Approved Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to materially impairing historic resources. The Certified EIR found that development of the Approved Project would have the potential to uncover archeological resources and human remains. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CR-5 through CR-8, impacts to archeological resources and human remains would be less than significant. 5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? x b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? x c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x The City maintains a local inventory of historic str uctures, the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (SARHP); the SARHP was last updated in February 3, 2020 . The Project Site includes five properties listed on the Register of Historic Properties. These properties include the McNeill-Basler House (1103 N. Broadway, SARHP #52); Koenig House (1109 N. Broadway, SARHP #68); the Walter Moore House (1205 N. Broadway, SARHP #69); 1115-1117 N. Broadway (MacIntosh Apartments, SARHP #102); and Kelley House (1211 N. 5 - 92 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 39 Broadway, SARHP #104). The SARHP notes that the Twist-Basler House/Basler Home is no longer at the Project Site and it was relocated to Cabrillo Park, Tennis Center (Santa Ana 2020). Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No impact. The Proposed Project amending the existing entitlements for the Approved Project to allow for the incorporation of residential uses within the approved office tower. The Proposed Project would not expand building square footage of the previously approved tower. As such, no changes proposed by the Proposed Project would result in new impacts to the historical resources on site. The Proposed Project would incorporate all identified mitigation measures. No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur, and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No impact. The Proposed Project would not result in new excavations or other soil disturbances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the possibility of uncovering or changing the significant of any archaeological resources. The Proposed Project would incorporate all identified mitigation measures. No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur, and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Disturb any human remains, including those inte rred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. The Proposed Project would not result in new excavation or other soil disturbances beyond what was approved under the Approved Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the possibility of disturbing any human remains. The Proposed Project would incorporate all identified mitigation measures. No impacts of greater severity than those previously identified in the Certified EIR would occur, and no changes or new information would require preparation o f a subsequent EIR. 5.5.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project CR-1 Relocation of Historic Resources at 1007-1009 North Broadway (Yale Apartments). The historical resources proposed for demolition as part of the proposed One Broadway Plaza project should be made available for relocation as follows: A. The availability of the Yale Apartments for relocation shall be noticed by posting a sign at a location which is visible from the public right-of-way and by advertising in at least one newspaper with a local circulation. These forms of notification shall persist at least 14 days; 5 - 93 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 40 PlaceWorks B. The buildings shall be made available free of charge for at least 60 days; C. Plans for the relocation of the buildings shall be submitted to and evaluated by the City Council; D. If the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission approves the relocation plan, the applicant has 30 days to remove the building(s) from the project site. If the buil ding(s) are not removed at the end of the 30 days, they may be demolished after they have been documented, as required in measure CR-2; and E. The length of this process shall endure for no more than 240 days from the date a demolition application is submitted. CR-2 Recordation of Historic Resources for 1007-1009 North Broadway (Yale Apartments). Although the demolition of an historical resource cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the following actions are important for documenting their loss for posterity. In the event the Yale Apartments are not relocated, they shall be documented, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, in a report consistent with Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards. That report shall document the significance and physical condition of the buildings proposed for demolition, both historic and current, photographs, written data and text. The report and historic survey must be completed by a person technically trained in the HABS methods. This documentation shall include: A. A brief written historic and descriptive report in narrative format, in cluding an architectural data form; B. A site plan on 8” x 11” paper showing the location of the building. This site plan shall include a photo-key. The site plan will include appropriate measurements; C. A sketch floor plan on 8” x 11” paper shall accompany each architectural data form; D. Large format (4” x 5” or larger negative size) photographs in accordance with the HABS guidelines. Views shall include several contextual views, all exterior elevations, detailed views of significant exterior architectural features and interior views of significant historical architectural features or spaces (if any). All photographs will be black and white, will include captions and will be listed in a separate index; E. Field photographs (35mm) based on the HABS guidelines. Views a s detailed in large format photographs. All photographs will be black and white, will include captions and will be listed in a separate index; F. The report shall include copies or prints of any available original plans and historic photographs; 5 - 94 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 41 G. Archivally stable reproductions of any available significant historic construction drawings and photographs; and H. Archival copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Santa Ana. I. In addition to the documentation identified above, the documentation shall include: • Elevations of all sides of the buildings on minimum 19” x 24” mylar and waterproof ink, copied and reduced to 8.5” x 11” on archival bond. • Floor plan with measurements. • Site plan should also include measurements. Photographs must include a separate index and captions and photos should be black and white. J. All survey information must be performed by a person technically trained in HABS methods. CR-3 Rehabilitation for National and California Register Eligible Resources at 1103 North Broadway (McNeill-Basler House). The One Broadway Plaza project proposes the rehabilitation of the McNeill -Basler House conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards fo r Rehabilitation (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1995). The rehabilitation is for use as a commercial space. Any rehabilitation must conform with the Secretary of the Interior ’s Standards for Rehabilitation (United States D epartment of the Interior National Park Service 1995). The following actions ensure compliance with the required Standards of Rehabilitation for proposed modifications to the structures at 1103 North Broadway: A. The rehabilitation of the structure at 1103 North Broadway shall conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1995); B. Detailed plans of the rehabilitation of the McNeill -Basler Home shall be submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval, prior to any changes to this structure. The City shall have a qualified architectural historian review and approve the plans and monitor the rehabilitation program, for consistency with the Standards for Rehabilitation; and C. The City of Santa Ana will document the rehabilitation program by establish ing a monitoring program and certification that the building is rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 5 - 95 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 42 PlaceWorks CR-4 Resources Listed on the City of Santa Ana Register of Historical Property at 1103 North Broadway (McNeill-Basler House), 1109 North Broadway (Koenig House), 1115-1117 North Broadway (Macintosh Apartments), and 1211 North Broadway (Kelley House) shall be rehabilitated in their present locations. These properties are all listed on the City of Santa Ana Register of Historical Property. Prior to any rehabilitation or modifications to the exteriors of these structures, other than painting, the project applicant must conform with the requirements of Ordinance No. NS -2338 (An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana Amending Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Regarding Places of Historical and Architectural Significance). Mitigation measure CR-3, above, requires compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for the proposed modifications to and rehabilitation of the structure at 1103 North Broadway Street. This satisfies the intent of Ordinance No. NS-2338 for this structure. For the remaining structures listed above, the following apply: A. Plans for modifications or rehabilitation to the exteriors of these structures must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to any changes to these structures. It is recommended that the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation be used to avoid any adverse effects to these recognized local historical resources; and B. The City of Santa Ana will document the rehabilitation program by establishing a monitoring program of the work, and shall require review and approval of the plans by a qualified architectural historian, and certification that the plans follow the design standards adopted by the City. CR-5 In the event unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, all construction activities within the vicinity of the finding shal l halt and the City’s Environmental Coordinator shall be contacted for appropriate action. CR-6 Human Remains. If Human Remains are found during the test excavation, the Native American Graves Protection Act Guidelines and State law require that the crew halt the work in the immediate area; leave the remains in place and contact the City of Santa Ana project personnel and the Orange County Coroner. Until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field, they must not be removed. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American community will be informed. The final deposition of remains will be coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent. 5 - 96 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 43 CR-7 Artifacts Any artifacts recovered shall be properly collected with photographs, field notes and locations plotted on a USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle and a project map. Artifacts will be identified, catalogued and stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, on a first right- of-refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. The Anthropology Museum at California State University, Fullerton would be an appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected on the projec t site. CR-8 Final Report. A final report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data, shal l be sent to the City of Santa Ana, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department. CR-9 Relocation for Resources Listed on the City of Santa Ana Register of Historical Property at 1015 North Broadway (Twist-Basler House). The developer shall relocate the structure located at 1015 North Broadway to a City approved location. Further, the structure shall be placed on a permanent foundation, have all utility services connected/operational and be rehabilitated to City standards. 5.6 ENERGY 5.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Energy was not analyzed as a topic in the prior One Broadway Plaza EIR but was addressed in the Utilities and Service Systems section of the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in an increase demand for electricity and natural gas. The Certified EIR found that Southern California Edison (SCE) has sufficient capacity to meet the project-generated demand for electricity. The Approved Project would not require electricity services beyond those planned or readily available or a substantial expansion of existing facilities. The Certified EIR found that the construction -related impact on electric lines would not disrupt service and construction-related impacts would be temporary. The Certified EIR found that Southern California Gas Company would be served by an existing gas main, and the Approved Project would not require natural gas facilities beyond those planned or readily available or a substantial expansion of existing facilities. With coordination with SCGC, construction -related impacts on natural gas would not disrupt existing service. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s impact on energy would be less than significant and implements mitigation measures to ensure coordination with SCE and SCGC and minimize damage to energy facilities during construction and the undergrounding of electrical lines. 5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: 5 - 97 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 44 PlaceWorks Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Result potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? x b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? x Comments a) Result potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be adequately served by the existing electricity and natural gas infrastructure. The Approved Project would not require elect ricity or natural gas facilities beyond those planned or readily available or a substantial expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project would occur within the building envelope of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not increase the square footage of the approved building. Development of the Approved Project and Proposed Project would be required to comply with California energy efficiency standards. The Proposed Project would place residential units into a previously approved office tower with commercial uses. The inclusion of residential uses within the Approved Project would create mixed-use development would further promotes active transportation, such as walking, and reduces dependency on vehicles. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As a result, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related, no change or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparati on of an EIR. Energy consumption of new buildings in California is regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) which establishes “energy budgets” and efficiency standards that regulate heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The Proposed Project’s electric and natural gas consumption would be in accordance with State and City regulations and practices. As such, the Proposed Project, as with the Approved Project would be considered consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Conservation Element (1982) and Energy Element (1982). Impacts 5 - 98 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 45 would be less than significant and no change or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.6.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to energy are applicable to the Proposed Project. 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR found that the development of the Approved Project would change the topography of the site; however, this would not result in a significant impact since the change would be covered by buildings constructed on the site. The soils on the site are classified as a single soil association and are relatively uniform in composition of Mocho association, including loam, clay loam, and similar soil types. Geotechnical testing indicated that the soils have low expansivity and mostly overconsolidated. The soils on the Project Site were determined to be adequate for building and do not pose a constraint for the land uses proposed as part of the Approved Project. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would impact existing topography and soils at the Project Site and incorporates mitigation measures to ensure that impacts are less than significant. The Approved Project does not include septic tanks; and no further discuss ion was required. The Certified EIR determined that a less than significant impact would occur with regards to groundshaking, liquefaction, and surface fault rupture. The Certified EIR identifies a mitigation measure to ensure that the Approved Project would comply with the seismic design provisions of the F inal Geology and Soils Report and the Uniform Building Code to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. The Initial Study analyzed landslides and determined that the Project Site and surrounding areas are relatively flat and developed . Construction of the Approved Project would create dust, which would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of a mitigation measure in place to control dust. Paleontological resources were analyzed as part of the Cultural Resources section in the Initial Study prepared for the Approved Project. The Initial Study determined that the Approved Project’s impact to paleontological resources and unique geologic features would be less than significant as the Project Site is currently developed and no prior discoveries of paleontological resources have occurred. 5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: 5 - 99 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 46 PlaceWorks Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. x ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? x iv) Landslides? x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? x c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? x d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2013), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? x e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? x f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x No known fault traces are located in the City of Santa Ana (DOC 2020). The Project Site is not located within a zone of potential liquefaction nor landslides (DOC 1998). Like most of the surrounding area, the Project Site is flat and developed and is not subject to landslides or substantial erosion. 5 - 100 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 47 Comments: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. As analyzed in the Certified EIR, no active or potentially active faults cross or project into the Project Site. Fault rupture is not expected to impact the Project Site. No impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the Certified EIR, seismic hazard from ground shaking is typical of Southern California. The Proposed Project, similar to the Approved Project, would be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Code to promote maximum safety in the event of an earthquake. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would comply with Mitigation Measure G-4. Impacts would be less than significant and no changes or new information wo uld require preparation of a subsequent EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. As discussed in the Certified EIR, th e Project Site is not located within a liquefaction zon e (DOC 1998). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to liquefaction compared to the Approved Project and impacts would remain less than significant. iv) Landslides? No Impact. the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced landside zone (DOC 1998). The Project Site is generally flat and located within an urbanized area. No impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required. No changes or new information from the Proposed Project would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not increase building area nor construct additional floor area. The Proposed Project would occur within the Approved Project’s building envelope. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in the soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not 5 - 101 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 48 PlaceWorks known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the Approved Project that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would bec ome unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . As under the Approved Project, the Proposed Project is not located on sensitive or unstable soil. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would comply with Mitigation Measure G -1 and a less than significant impact would occur. There are no substantial chang es in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the Approved Project that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2013), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property ? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the soils on site have low expansivity potential. The Proposed Project does not include any additional building square footage and therefore would not require additional grading or earthwork. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure G -2, prior to acquiring a grading permit for constructio n, the developer would be required to prepare a Final Geology and Soils report to specially assess shrink -swell potential of potentially expansive soils on site and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the report. The Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the Approved Project that would require the preparation of a subseq uent EIR. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. As under the Approved Project, implementation of the Prop osed Project would not involve the construction or use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal system. No impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Proposed Project would not increase building area nor require additional earthwork activities. The Proposed Project would occur within the Approved Project’s building envelope. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the Approved Project that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5 - 102 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 49 5.7.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. G-1 The design for the project will comply with all applicable provisions of the Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation performed by Zeiser Kling Consultants and their Addendum Recommendations, including recommendations for grading, removal and recompaction of s oils, foundations, settlement, pile foundations, design criteria, seismic design, retaining walls, ferrous corrosion, surface drainage, pavement design, concrete hardscape, soldier pile/logging system and supplemental investigations. G-2 Prior to acquiring a grading permit for project construction, the developer will prepare a F inal Geology and Soils Report, to specifically assess the following: i. The shrink-swell potential of potentially expansive soils on the site; specifically addressing appropriate recommendations for soil treatments, grading procedures and/or foundation designs, as appropriate, for the planned land use on the site. ii. The potential for compressible soils on the site; specifically addressing appropriate recommendations for soil treatments, grading procedures and/or foundation designs, as appropriate, for the planned land use on the site. The recommendations from the Final Geology and Soils Report will be incorporated into the grading plan for the project. G-3 Prior to obtaining a grading permi t for project construction, the Final Geology and Soils Report will specifically assess grading control with special emphasis on controlling fugitive dust which could be generated during site preparation, grading and construction. The reports will specifically provide for establishing procedures for dust control and monitoring so that unacceptable levels of dust do not escape from the site. These dust control measures will be coordinated with the dust control measures described in Section 3.4 (Air Quality) of the Certified EIR. The standards and procedures developed in the reports will be incorporated into the grading plan to be followed by the project developer. G-4 All structures to be erected on the One Broadway Plaza site will be designed in accordance w ith the seismic design provisions in the Final Geology and Soils Report an d of the Uniform Building Code to promote safety in the event of such an earthquake. G-5 During final design, the developer will consult with the Orange County Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana, regarding intrusion of foundation piles into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The project applicant will solicit the appropriate permits and approvals from the OCWD and the RWQCB for the anticipated intrusion of the foundation piles into the 5 - 103 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 50 PlaceWorks Groundwater Basin and will incorpo rate measures identified by those agencies in the final design and construction specifications for the project. 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR did not analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Regulatory Setting Federal Laws The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollu tants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world (the first three are applicable to the Proposed Project). In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report. State Laws Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05, Executive Order B-30-15; Assembly Bill (AB) 32; Senate Bill (SB) 32; and SB 375. In addition to the regulations discussed below, the State of California has a number of laws relating to GHG in different sectors, including transportation, renewable energy portfolio, energy efficiency, and water efficiency. Executive Order S-03-05 Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the state: ▪ 2000 levels by 2010 ▪ 1990 levels by 2020 ▪ 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 5 - 104 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 51 Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Current State of California guidance and targets for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction goals established in Executive Order S-03-05. Executive Order B-30-15 Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions. Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197, making the Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide, mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017, CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change Scop ing Plan Update, which outlines potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030 (CARB 2017). California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conserve agricultural and other lands. Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement local air pollution control efforts by the local air districts to tighten criteria air pollutants and TACs emissions limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include: ▪ Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which inclu de increasing ZE buses and trucks; ▪ Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030). 5 - 105 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 52 PlaceWorks ▪ Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Stand ard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030. ▪ California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency and utilizes near-zero emissions technology and deployment of ZE trucks. ▪ Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030. ▪ Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. ▪ Continued implementation of SB 375. ▪ Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified lo cal governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and recommended local actions to reduce GHG emissions—for example, statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the state’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies have discretion to develop evidenced-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals. To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on -site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute poten tial air quality, health, and economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts through purchasing and retiring carbon credits. The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual yardstick—that is, what would the GHG emissions look like if the state did nothing at all beyond the policies that are already required and in place to achieve the 2020 limit. It includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” LCFS, and the SB 375 program for more vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into sta tute over the past two years. Known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO 2e above the target in 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved. 5 - 106 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 53 Senate Bill 375 In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the Southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG’s targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035 (CARB 2010). The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come fr om improving the efficiency of the region’s transportation network. The targets would result in 3 MMTCO 2e of reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB’s Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010). 2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018 . The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels s trategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035, translate into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted SCSs. As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of SCS updates, CARB’s updated targets for the SCAG region are an 8 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2020 from 2005 levels (unchanged from the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels (compared to the 2010 target of 13 percent) (CARB 2018). CARB adopted the updated targets and methodology on March 22, 2018. All SCSs adopted after October 1, 2018 are subject to these new targets. 5 - 107 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 54 PlaceWorks SCAG’s RTP/SCS SB 375 requires each MPO to prepare an SCS in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016, and is an update to the 2012 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). SCAG recently released the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Draft Connect SoCal Plan) on November 7, 2019. In general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from automobiles and light duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS projects that the SCAG region will meet or exceed the passenger per capita targets set in 2010 by CARB. It is projected that VMT per capita in the region fo r year 2040 would be reduced by 7.4 percent with implementation of the 2016 -2040 RTP/SCS compared to a no-plan year 2040 scenario. Under the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, SCAG anticipates lowering GHG emissions 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 18 percent by 2035, and 21 percent by 2040. The 18 percent reduction by 2035 over 2005 levels represents a 2 percent increase in reduction compared to the 2012 RTP/SCS projection. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the aforementioned regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the region’s targets include planning for new growth around high quality transit areas and livable corridors and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transporta tion and plan for more active lifestyles (SCAG 2016). However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and developers for consistency. Methodology Urban Crossroads prepared a memorandum reviewing Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Proposed Project (AQ/GHG Memo). The AQ/GHG Memo is contained in Appendix A. The Certified EIR did not quantify GHG emissions. As such, GHG emissions for th e Approved Project and Proposed Project were calculated employing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum- stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? x b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? x 5 - 108 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 55 Comments: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Both the Approved Project and the Proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by the One Broadway Plaza development, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use/wastewater generation, and waste disposal. The AQ/GHG Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads compares the greenhouse gas emissions from the Approved Project and the Proposed Project. The estimated GHG emissions for the currently approved land uses are summarized on Table 6. As shown on Table 6, Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses would generate a total of approximately 10,009.23 MTCO2e per year. As shown on Table 7, Proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 6,415.16 MTCO2e per year. Table 6 Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza Land Uses GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Area 0.01 4.00E-05 0.00 0.01 Energy 3,072.67 0.12 0.03 3,084.87 Mobile Sources 5,901.29 0.26 0.00 5,907.81 Waste 109.03 6.44 0.00 270.11 Water Usage 641.58 3.23 0.08 746.43 Total CO2e (All Sources) 10,009.23 5 - 109 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 56 PlaceWorks Table 7 Proposed Project GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Area 6.78 6.62E-03 0.00 6.94 Energy 2,568.56 0.09 0.03 2,579.25 Mobile Sources 2,979.94 0.14 0.00 2,983.43 Waste 98.23 5.82 0.00 244.09 Water Usage 516.89 2.60 0.07 601.44 Total CO2e (All Sources) 6,415.16 Based on greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Proposed Project compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease 3,594.07 MTCO2e per year in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantively different or substantively increased GHG emissions impacts than the emissions associated with the Approved Project. The project-related greenhouse gas emissions are considered less than significant. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that would require the preparation of a subsequen t EIR. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. There are numerous State plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order B-30-15 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 further established a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not conflict with those plans and regulations. 5.8.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions were identified in the Certified EIR. 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that during the construction of the Approved Project the accident prevention and containment are the responsibility of the construction contractions, and provisions to manage hazardous materials and waste are a standard component of construction plans. Further, the Approved Project would be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements and implement best management practices to ensure the 5 - 110 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 57 proper handling of hazardous materials and to contain and clean up accidental releases. Construction of the Approved Project would temporarily increase the transport of hazardous substances, such as vehicle fuels and paints. Further, the construction of the Approved Project would demolish buildings that likely contain asbestos- containing materials and lead-based paint. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Approved Project determined that there are no unusual hazardous conditions at the Project Site. The Certified EIR deter mined that the operation of the Approved Project would include minimal hazardous material use and waste. The presence of chemicals onsite, if no t properly stored or handled could expose site occupants to hazardous materials. The Certified EIR determined that the potential for significant adverse impacts to offsite uses is unlikely given the nature and limited about of materials. Compliance with re gulatory measures, including the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan, would reduce impacts of hazardous materials during the operation of the project. The Certified EIR determined that the demolition of buildings on -site may contain asbestos materials and lead- based paint. Hazardous materials could be used in the construction and operation of the Approved Project. Mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The Initial Study for the Certified EIR determined that the Project Site is not within a two-mile radius of a public airport and no private airstrips are lo cated in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Certified EIR addressed the Approved Project’s impact to air transportation in the Transportation and Traffic section. The Project Site is located outside of the Accident Potential Zone for the John Wayne Airport. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be required to comply with FAA Par t 77 regulations. The Initial Study for the Approved Project determined that the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and would not be subject to wildland fires. 5 - 111 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 58 PlaceWorks 5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? x b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? x d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? x e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? x f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? x g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? x 5 - 112 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 59 Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine tran sport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As with the Approved Project, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would involve the use, transport, and disposal of typical hazardous materials used in the construction and operation of residential uses. For example, construction of the Proposed Project would use vehicle fuel for the construction equipment, paints, and solvents and the operation of the Proposed Project would involve typical household cleaning supplies. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure HZ-3 to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations for the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes. The Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact. The Proposed Project would follow existing regulations and would not result in any new or more severe impacts that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/No Change s or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the demolition of existing structures on site could result in the accidental release of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint. The Certified EIR implements Mitigation Measures HZ-1 and HZ-2 to address ACMs and lead-based paint. The Proposed Project would not demolish any buildings, since the Proposed Project would occur within the approved office tower. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would involve the handling of hazardous materials that are typical of construction and operation of residential uses. As with the Approved Project, the handling of hazardous materials is regulated by state and federal laws. The Proposed Project would not involve the use of materials in a manner that poses any substantial hazards to people, or to animal or plant populations. In order to address the use and handling of hazardous materials, the Proposed Project would implement identified mitigation measures. Potential impacts relating to the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As stated in the Certified EIR, the potential for significant adverse impact to offsite uses, including the adjacent High School of the Arts and Willard Junior High School (approximately 0.25 miles west), is unlikely given the nature and amount of hazardous materials that would be used on site. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse impact to schools, including the Orange County Education Arts Academy, El Sol Academy, High School of the Arts and Willard Junior High School. The handling and transport of hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, 5 - 113 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 60 PlaceWorks State, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous waste. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity o f previously identified effect and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Phase I ESA prepared for the Approved Project determined that there are no unusual hazardous conditions at the Project Site. A review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker and the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor databases indicate that there are no cleanup sites on the Project Site (SWRCB 2020, DTSC 2020). Further, a review of US Environmental Protection Agency’s EJSCREEN mapping tool shows no hazardous waste sites on the Project Site (USEPA 2019). The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effect and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would be required to comply with FAA regulations and file Form 7460-1 for buildings exceeding 200 feet in height. The Proposed Project would not increase the height of the Approved Project nor add new building area. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant and the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effect and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Initial Study for the Approved Project states that there are no designated emergency evacuation rou tes in the City. The Public Services Section of the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would incorporate fire access roadway requirements of the California Fire Code. For the Approved Project, SAFD required an additional traffic signal at the intersections of Broadway Street and 10th Street, Broadway Street and Washington Avenue, and Sycamore Street and Washington Avenue as well as any intersection updates to accommodate traffic for the Approved Project. Since these intersections are already signalized an emergency vehicle preemption detector can be installed as part of the Approved Project (refer to Mitigation Measure PS - 8 below). Further, as discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services, the Proposed Project would implement all identified mitigation measures which would ensure that the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to police protection and fire and emergency services. These mitigation measures would further ensure that the Proposed Project would not impair the implementation of an emergency response plan. This impact would be less than significant, and the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact 5 - 114 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 61 or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effect and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The Project Site is located in a dense urban environment and is surrounded by existing development. There are no wildland areas, nor wildland interface areas located in the vicinity. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would not be affected or affect wildland fires. No impact would occur and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.9.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. HZ-1 The City shall require the site demolition and remodeling contractors to conduct a building by building inspection for the presence of asbestos-containing materials prior to the issuance of demolition permits for the site. The demolition contractor may submit copies of asbestos inspection reports for the site already prepared to satisfy SCAQMD Rule 1403 to fulfill this requirement. HZ-2 The City shall require the site demolition and remodeling contractors to conduct a building by building inspection for the presence of lead-based paint prior to the issuance of demolition permits for the site. Building inspection reports already prepared by the contractor to satisfy Cal-OSHA worker safety requirements may be submitted to fulfill this mitigation measure. HZ-3 Any use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous wastes on the proposed project site must be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that construction and operation of the Approved Project may generate surface runoff with pollutants that could impact area receiving waters. The Approved Project would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, a Water Quality Management Plan, and a NPDES permit. The Certified EIR found that development of the Approved Project would result in a moderate increase in impervious surfaces on site. The project developer would regrade the Project Site so that flows drain into the existing storm drain system that exists adjacent to the Project Site. Appropriate drainage facilities would be constructed as part of the Approved Project. Identified mitigation measures would result impacts to less than significant level. 5 - 115 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 62 PlaceWorks The Certified EIR (Geology and So ils Section) found that the depth of groundwater in the vicinity of the Project Site is 80 to 85 feet below ground surface. The Approved Project would require foundation piles that could extend to depths of 60 to 80 feet below ground surface, which could extend into the groundwater. The Certified EIR identified a mitigation measure would reduce impacts to groundwater to a less than significant level. The Initial Study prepared for the Certified EIR found that the Project Site is not near a large body of wat er that would generate tsunamis or seiches. The Certified EIR determined that the Project Site is outside of an area that could flood. The Approved Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to placement of structures in a flood zone. 5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? x b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? x c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? x d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? x 5 - 116 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 63 Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? x Comments: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that construction and operation of the Approved Project may generate surface runoff with pollutants that could impact area receiving waters. The Approved Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP, WQMP, and NPDES permit. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would comply with the SWPPP, WQMP, and NPDES permit for the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not increase development floor area nor impervious surfaces. The Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures. As such, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified e ffects and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. The Certified EIR (Geology and Soils section) identifies Mitigation Measure G -5 to address the intrusion of the Approved Project’s foundation piles into the groundwater. Mitigation Measure G -5 would ensure that the Approved Project’s foundation piles would result in a less than significant impact regarding the introduction of contaminants into the groundwater. The Proposed Project would comply with all identified mitigation measures. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwa ter recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of a n EIR. The Proposed Project would not expand the approved building square footage nor increase impervious surfaces. As such implementation of the Proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the 5 - 117 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 64 PlaceWorks rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would not develop new floor area nor increase impervious surfaces. As such implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter existing drainage pattern of the site nor the p roject area. The Proposed Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The Proposed Project wo uld not create a new significant impact nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to projec t inundation? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Initial Study for the Certified EIR determined that the Project Site is not near any large bodies of water that could generate tsunamis or seiches. The Certified EIR determined that the Project Site is outside the area that could be inundated by flood water. While the Project Site is not within a flood area, the Project Site may be exposed to street flooding during period of heavy rain due to defici ent storm drains. The Certified EIR provides mitigation measures to address storm drain capacity. Since the Proposed Project would not increase the development floor area nor impervious surfaces on the Project Site, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to flood hazard and inundation. The Proposed Project would comply with the SWPPP, WQMP, and NPDES permit and implement all identified mitigation measures. A less than significant impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would not construct new floor area nor increase imper vious surfaces. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would comply with the SWPPP, WQMP, and NPDES permit. Further, the Proposed Project would comply with Mitigation Measures W-1 through W-8. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan and would not impact groundwater. A less than significant impact would occur. 5.10.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. W-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project: 5 - 118 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 65 ▪ The developer will prepare and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). ▪ The developer will submit the NOI and the project Water Discharge Identification Number (WDIN) to the City of Santa Ana City Engineer. ▪ The developer will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and will submit the SWPPP to the City Engineer for review and comment. The developer will maintain the SWPPP on the construction site throughout the construction period. W-2 During all site preparation, grading and construction, the project contractors will compl y with all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit, the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The project contractors will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the DAMP and LIP and will implem ent those measures as appropriate during site preparation, gra ding and construction. W-3 During all site preparation, grading and construction, the construction contractors will be responsible for implementing the SWPPP provisions. The SWRCB is responsibl e for monitoring and enforcing the provision of the SWPPP. In addition, the City Engineer will monitor and enforce these provisions during all site preparation, grading and construction, as appropriate, to ensure the SWPPP is properly implemented. W-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Developer sh all provide for the review and approval of the Director of Public Works a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project consistent with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The WQMP shall contain provisions and BMPs for both construction and operating conditions. W-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Developer shall submit a final drainage plan for the proposed One Broadway Plaza project for review and approval by the City Engineer. W-6 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Developer shall pay the City’s drainage area impact fee. W-7 During operation of the proposed project, the Project Owner/Operator shall ensure that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed consistent with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. The City Engineer shall monitor and enforce this provision. W-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall verify that structural BMPs have been permanently incorporated into project plans by the applicant. Such BMPs shall ensure that pollutants from project-related storm water are mitigated consistent with applicable state and local standards. 5 - 119 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 66 PlaceWorks 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would be compatible with existing land uses in the project area. The Certified EIR discussed the App roved Project’s consistency with the City of Santa Ana General Plan (1982), Midtown Specific Plan (1996), Santa Ana Redevelopment Plan, and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Com prehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project is consistent with the Santa Ana Redevelopment Plan and SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan. With approval of requested entitlements, the Approved Project would not be in conflict with the General Plan and the Midtown Specific Plan. The Approved Project is located within an already developed area and would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict wi th any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plan (both topics were scoped out in the Initial Study for the Approved Project). The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. 5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum- stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would amend the existing entitlements to allow for up to 402 residential units within an approved 37-story office tower. The Proposed Project’s residential units would occur within the envelope of the Approved Project; the Proposed Project would not result in an expansion of the building footprint or in new development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would not create a 5 - 120 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 67 new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects and impacts would remain less than significant. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The majority of the Project Site is currently zoned SD -75, One Broadway Plaza Specific Development District with a corresponding land use designation of One Broadway Plaza District Center. One parcel on the Project Site (APN: 398-561-03; located at 1205 N. Broadway) is currently zoned Midtown Specific Plan (SP3) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Professional & Administration Office. The SD-75 zone and One Broadway Plaza District Center land use designation do not allow for residential uses. With approval of the entitlement requests to amend the SD-75 zoning and OBPDC land use designation, the proposed project would not conflict with the SD-75 zoning and OBPDC land use designation on site. No change would occur to the parcel with APN 398-561-03, which is zoned Midtown Specific Plan (SP3) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Professional & Administration Office. With the zone text amendment and general plan amendment, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In addition, as described in this Addendum, no significant impacts are associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to land use would remain less than significant and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.11.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were identified in the Certified EIR. 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis As referenced in the Certified EIR, the Initial Study determined that no mineral resources exist on the Project Site, and the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources that would be of state, regional or local value. N o additional analysis was required in the EIR. 5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: 5 - 121 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 68 PlaceWorks Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X For the purpose of CEQA analysis, mineral resources refer to aggregate resources that consist of sand, gravel, and crushed rock. Aggregate resources provide bulk and strength in construction materials such as portland cement and asphaltic concrete. Other nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper and industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone. The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in accordance with the California Surface Mining an d Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The State Geologist is responsible for classifying areas within California that are subject to urban expansion or other irrevers ible land uses. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance. Classification into MRZ is completed by the State Geologist in accordance with the SMGB’s priority list and according to the presence or absence of significant mineral resources. Of the four MRZ categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate tha t significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by SMGB as being “regionally significant.” Such designations require that a lead agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies (if any exist) and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the state as a whole, not just to the lead agency’s jurisdiction. The MRZ-1 zone depicts areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ -3 indicates areas of undetermined mineral resource significance. 5 - 122 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 69 Comments: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Proposed Project’s residential units would occur within the envelope of the Approved Project; the Proposed Project would not result in an expansion of the building footprint or in new development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts to mineral resources. No impact would occur and no changes or new information would require prepara tion of a subsequent EIR. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The Land Use Element states that there are no significan t mineral aggregate resource areas designations within the City (City of Santa Ana 1998). The Proposed Project’s residential units would occur within the envelope of the Approved Project; the Proposed Project would not result in an expansion of the building footprint or in new development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts to mineral resources. No impact would occur and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.12.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were identified in the Certified EIR. 5.13 NOISE 5.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that the construction of the Approved Project could generate noise levels that exceed noise standards established by the City of Santa Ana noise thresholds. However, the implementation of identified mitigation measures would reduce temporary construction noise i mpacts to a less than significant level. Operation of the Approved Project, including use of the parking structure, operational noise due to project traffic, and potential helipad noise, would result in a less than significant impact. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s contribution to future traffic noise is insignificant. The Certified EIR found the Approved Project may experience future traffic noise levels in excess of the City’s noise threshold and identifies Mitigation Measure N -3 to ensure that the on-site commercial buildings would keep outside noise from entering the interior of these buildings. The Initial Study to the Certified EIR determined that because the Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the p roject area to excessive airport related noise levels. 5 - 123 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 70 PlaceWorks The Certified EIR analyzed vibration as part of Geology and Soils. The Certified EIR determined that land uses adjacent to the Project Site would experience temporary annoyance due to vibration from c onstruction. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s impact relating to construction would be less than significant. 5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project result in: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum- stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Comments: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would not substantially increase construction noise, since the Proposed Project would occur within the building envelop e of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures. With regards to construction noise, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifie d effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. The Proposed Project would convert up to 19 floors of office uses (from the Approved Project) to up to 402 residential units. Based on the Trip Generation Memo (contained in Appendix B and discussed in the 5 - 124 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 71 Transportation section), the implementation of the Proposed Project would reduce vehicle trips to and from the Project Site compared to the Approved Project. Since the Proposed Project is converting previously approved office uses to residential uses, would not expand building floor area, and would result in a reduction of vehicle trips, the operation of the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. In fact, with the reduction in trips, noise impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would actually be reduced as compared to the Approved Project. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project may experience future traffic noise levels in excess of the City’s noise threshold and identifies Mitigation Measure N-3 to lower impacts to a less than significant level. The Proposed Project’s would not place residences on the groundfloor, and therefore, the on-site residential units would not be immediately adjacent to this noise source. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that land uses adjacent to the Project Site would experience temporary annoyance due to vibration from construction. The construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the building envelope of the Approved Project. As such, the construction of the Proposed Project would not increase vibration due to construction. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. Similar to the conditions evaluated in the Certified EIR, there are no public airports, public use airports or private airstrips in the Proposed Project Site vicinity. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive levels of aircraft- or airport-related noise. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Overall, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Approved Project as analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact o r a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. 5.13.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the 5 - 125 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 72 PlaceWorks mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. N-1 Project construction shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed on Sunday or federal holidays. N-2 Temporary noise barriers shall be installed between the project construction area and adjacent residents. These noise barriers may include the use of leaded blankets, an acoustic blanket or several layers of plywood. “Bravo” acoustic blankets may also be used. Barriers should be 16 to 20 feet high. N-3 The commercial buildings in the project will require mechanical ventilation to keep outside noise from entering the interior of these buildings. The central ventilation systems for the buildings shall allow for sufficient ventilation so that offi ce windows can be closed. Air conditioning units may be adequate for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements of the UBC. This shall be coordinated with the project’s mechanical engineer. N-4 Prior to any site preparation, grading or construction, the project contractor will provide the Principals at the Orange County High School of the Arts, Orange County Educational Arts Academy and the El Sol Science and Arts Academy with the project construction schedule indicating the type of construction activity and duration. The project construction schedule shall address all construction activity from the start of the project to completion. 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would generate 2,126 jobs, which is unlikely to exceed regional employment projections for City of Santa Ana. Job creation could increase housing demand in the City, which would be met by the construction of new residential projects and existing housing programs. The Certified EIR determined that it is unlikely that the increase would exceed regional projections. No mitigation measures were required. 5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: 5 - 126 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 73 Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG maintains the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). As part of the RTP/SCS, SCAG analyzes demographic and growth forecasts for its region (SCAG 2016a). Table 8 below summaries the growth projections for the City of Santa Ana and Orange County. Table 8 Forecast, City of Santa Ana and Orange County 2012 2040 Change, 2012-2040 Percent Change, 2012-2040 Population City of Santa Ana 329,200 343,100 13,900 4.2% Orange County 3,071,600 3,461,500 389,900 12.7% Housing City of Santa Ana 73,300 78,000 4,700 6.4% Orange County 999,500 1,152,300 152,800 15.3% Employment City of Santa Ana 154,800 166,000 11,200 7.2% Orange County 1,526,500 1,898,900 372,400 24.4% Source: SCAG 2016b. 5 - 127 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 74 PlaceWorks Comments: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would introduce residential units to the Approved Project, which did not include residential uses. The Proposed Project would allow for approximately 254,472 square feet of residential uses (maximum of 402 dwelling units) within up to 19 floors in place of some of the office uses. The Proposed Project would result in direct population growth with the incorporation of housing units. The City of Santa Ana assumes an average of 2.4 persons per multi-family units based on Municipal Code Section 34-204. The Proposed Project’s 402 dwelling units would conservatively generate 965 new residents. Based on Table 8 above, the Proposed Project’s 402 dwelling units and anticipated population growth would be well within the growth projections for the City of Santa Ana and for Orange County. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in unplanned population growth or housing growth. With regards to employment, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project’s office and commercial uses would generate 2,126 jobs that would be within the anticipated growth projections. The Proposed Project would result in a decrease in non-residential square footage and would therefore generate less jobs than the Approved Project. The Approved Project’s employment generation is within SCAG’s employment growth projections, and therefore the Proposed Project’s employment generation is within SCAG’s employment growth projections. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in unplanned, indirect population growth. A significant impact related to population or housing would not occur and no mitigation is required. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The southern portion of the Project Site where the office tower is to be located is currently under construction for the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would allow for residential units within the previously approved office tower building. The Proposed Project would not develop new building square footage or expand the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.14.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to population and housing were identified in the Certified EIR. 5 - 128 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 75 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would create additional demand for police services and fire and/or emergency rescue services. Additionally, the Approved Project would be expected to lead to new school-aged students. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not impact library services. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of identified mitigation measures. The Approved Project’s impact to parks was discussed in the Initial Study to the Certified EIR under the Recreation topic. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not significantly increase the use of area parks or lead to substantial physical deterioration of these recreation resources. The Approved Project’s impact on parks and recreational facilities was determined to be less than significant. 5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered gover nmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Libraries? X Comments: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection and emergency services to the project area. The Proposed Project would allow for residential uses in place of some of the approved office uses. The 5 - 129 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 76 PlaceWorks Proposed Project would occur within the existing building envelope and would not increase the size of the building nor add new floor area. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to pay fire facilities fees. The payment of the fire facilities fees would reduce the impac t of the Proposed Project. With the implementation of mitigation identified in the Certified EIR, the impact would remain less than significant. The Proposed Project shall comply with such mitigation measures and would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The obligation of the Proposed Project to meet all access, water and fire protection systems required under the California Building Code and Fire Code, as well as the City Municipal Codes will assist in maintaining impacts that are less than significant. No changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent E IR. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of a n EIR. As discussed in the Certified EIR, the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) provides all law enforcement services to the project area. The Proposed Project would allow for residential uses in place of some of the approved office uses. The Proposed Project would occur within the existing building envelope and would not increase the size of the building nor add new floor area. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures to ensure that the design of the Proposed Project meets SAPD’s design standards and on-site security and impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Project Site is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). The Proposed Project would be served by Heroes Elementary School (located at 1111 W Civic Center Dr), Willard Intermediate School (located at 1342 N Ross St), and Santa Ana High School (located at 520 W Walnut St). The Proposed Project would generate up to 402 residential units and up to 965 residents at the Project Site, some of which are expected to be school-aged children. As shown in Table 9, the Proposed Project would be expected to generate approximately 227 students. As such, the Proposed Project would increase the demand for school services. As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to pay SB 50 school impact fees to the SAUSD. Payment of school impact fees will ensure that the impact of the Proposed Project on school services are less than significant level; the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered schools or result in the construction o f a new school. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. 5 - 130 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 77 Table 9 Proposed Project Student Generation School Generation Rate (Multifamily) Proposed Dwelling Units Student Generated Elementary School 0.2899 402 117 Middle School 0.1256 402 50 High School 0.1484 402 60 Total: 227 Source: Dolinka Group 2014. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would generate residents on-site which are anticipated to use area parks. As discussed in the Initial Study for the Approved Project, French Park is the nearest park to the Project Site. Sasser, Angels, and Birch Parks are also in the project vicinity. Additionally, the Approved Project includes a courtyard on -site and interior recreation space, which could be used by onsite residents. The development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the Ci ty’s Park Acquisition and Development Fee. Payment of the park fees would ensure that the Proposed Project’s impacts are less than significant. e) Library services? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated in the Certified EIR, the Project Site is served by Santa Ana Library System services. The Project area is served by the Civic Center Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza, which is approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project Site. The Santa Ana Library system includes the Civic Center Library, which includes a computer lab, learning center, and Santa Ana History Room, and the Newhope Library Learning Center, which includes a computer lab, learning center, and teen space. The City also has the Rancho Santiago Community College Library and the Orange County Law Library. Future residents of the Project Site would be mainly served by the Civic Center Library; however, residents would have access to all libraries in the City of Santa Ana. The ability to visit any library within the Santa Ana Library System would alleviate demand on the Civic Center library. Further, the Santa Ana Library system is funded by the City’s General Fund in combination with grants and donations (City of Santa Ana 2020). As such, the operation of the One Broadway Plaza would contribute to the library by paying property taxes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to library services. 5.15.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been in corporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. 5 - 131 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 78 PlaceWorks PS-1 The design of the project parking structure shall conform to the City of Santa Ana Police Department’s design standards for parking structures. PS-2 The design of the project shall include on site office spaces for the SAPD, which will be shared with any on site security staff. Two designated parking spaces will be provided for the SAPD near the main entrance of the proposed One Broadway Plaza project. PS-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a construction phasing plan for the proposed pro ject to the SAFD OCFA. The plan will be consistent with SAFD OCFA Fire Code requirements. Also, the project developer shall provide evidence to the SAFD OCFA that the proposed fire protection services will be adequate to serve the proposed project development. A fire exit shall be provided in the office mixed-use building along with adequate fire protection facilities and equipment to serve the proposed 37 -story office mixed-use building. PS-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a construction phasing plan for the project to the SAFD OCFA. This plan will show that emergency vehicle access to the project site is adequate. Emergency access will be provided on Washington Avenue and Sycamore Street. PS-5 The final design of the project shall include fire sprinklers in the office mixed-use building and parking garage at locations specified by the SAFD OCFA. The project shall also conform with all applicable SAFD OCFA fire protection and access requirements. PS-6 The final design of the project shall include fire hydran ts at locations specified by the SAFDOCFA. PS-7 The project developer shall notify the SAFD OCFA and SAPD when the office mixed-use building heliport is operational. PS-8 The project developer shall contribute a fair share amount to have an emergency vehicle preemption detector placed on the existing traffic signal arm at the intersection of Broadway Street and 10th Street, Broadway Street and Washington Avenue and Washington Avenue and Sycamore Street. These detectors shall also be placed on any other traffic signal and modified as part of this project. PS-9 The project developer shall incorporate a repeater in the design of the project to prevent interference with Police and Fire Department radio signals. PS-10 Prior to the issuance of building permits, th e project developer shall submit evidence to the City of Santa Ana of a fee payment between the developer and the SAUSD to offset school facility related impacts. PS-11 The project site and sidewalks adjacent to the site shall be properly barricaded to prevent unauthorized access to the site during project construction activities. 5 - 132 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 79 PS-12 The Principals at Willard Intermediate School , the Orange County High School of Arts, El Sol Science and Arts Academy, Orange County Educational Arts Academy, and Davis Elementary School shall be notified by the project developer before project construction begins that students may be required to use sidewalks on the opposite sides of streets to avoid project construction activities and closure of the sidewalks adjacent to th e project site. PS-13 The project developer shall submit to the Santa Ana Unified School District a School Access Plan that provides for the safe passage of students to and from Willard Interm ediate School and the Orange County High School of the Arts. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Santa Ana Unified School District before construction activities are initiated. The School Access Plan shall include, but not be limited to: ▪ The closure of the sidewalks on Washington Avenue, Tenth Street, Sycamore Street and Broadway adjacent to the project site. Appropriate signs shall be posted that the sidewalks are closed and pedestrians are directed to use sidewalks on the opposite sides of the streets. ▪ Barricading the perimeter of the project site with temporary fencing to secure construction equipment, minimizing trespassing, vandalism and short-cut attractions, and to reduce hazards to students during project demolition activities. ▪ The posting of a flag person at the entrance(s) to the project site to protect pedestrians from conflicts with heavy equipment and haul trucks entering or leaving the project site during the times of school arrivals and departures. ▪ The funding of crossing guards at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Broadway, Washington Avenue and Sycamore Street, Tenth and Sycamore Streets and Tenth Street and Broadway. Crossing guards shall be provided during the times of school arrivals and departures when the schools are in session Monday through Friday. If determined to be necessary by the principal of the Orange County High School of the Arts (OCHSA), provide crossing guards at the intersection of Sycamore and Tenth Streets when special daytime performances are held at the OCHSA auditorium. ▪ Provide sufficient written notice of commencement and completion of project construction activities to the principals of Willard Intermediate School and the Orange County High School of the Arts. ▪ Provide the name and telephone number of a contact person who is knowledgeable about the project for the developer and construction contractor for use by the principals of Willard Intermediate School and the Orange County High School of the Arts. 5 - 133 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 80 PlaceWorks 5.16 RECREATION 5.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis According to the Initial Study prepared for the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would not significantly increase the use of area parks or recreational facilities. The Approved Project would not result in the deterioration of recreational resources in the area. The Approved Project does not include recreational facilities that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. 5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? x b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? x The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Agency have been responsible for maintaining, managing construction, and programming facilities within its park and recreation network, along with several public school grounds. The Agency provides a range of recreational opportunities that include parks, sport fields, the Santa Ana Stadium, senior and recreation centers, swimming pools, the Santa Ana Zoo, and the trail system. Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project would be expected to g enerate 965 residents. These residents are anticipated to use area parks and recreational resources. However, the Proposed Project would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of area parks or recreational facilities. The development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Park Acquisition and 5 - 134 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 81 Development Fee. The payment of the fee would ensure that the Proposed Project’s impacts are less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, no public recreational facilities are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.16.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to recreation were identified in the Certified EIR. 5.17 TRANSPORTATION 5.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Primary arterial access to the Approved Project would be provided by Main Street and Broadway. The Approved Project includes the development of an eight-level parking garage which would have access from two locations: (1) north access along Washington and Sycamore and (2) south access along Sycamore and an exit only driveway on Broadway. Implementation of the Approved Project would alter the circulation of adjacent roadways, which would impact surface transportation routes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Approved Project could impact traffic through neighborhoods. After incorporation of identified mitigation measures, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact to surface transportation routes and neighborhood traffic. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not impact any existing bus routes or other transit facilities along Broadway; however, the Approved Project would generate workers who are likely to use the bus system. The Approved Project would temporarily remove sidewalks along most of the Project Site to accommodate project construction and will be re-constructed by project as part of street improvements. The Approved Project incorporates mitigation measures to address increased bus demand and pedestrian facilities and would result in a less than significant impact. The Approved Project would be required to comply with the City’s Transportation Demand Ma nagement Ordinance. Implementation of the Approved Project would result in two street segments (Main Street between 17th Street and 1st Street and Broadway between (Santa Clara Avenue and 1st Street) and seven intersections (Main Street & 17th Street; Broadway Street & 17th; Main Street & Washington Avenue; Broadway Street & 4th Street; 1st Street & Flower Street; Santa Ana Boulevard & Flower Street; and Fairview & 1st Street) exceeding the level of service thresholds. After the incorporation of mitigation measures, the impact at these intersections and roadway segments remain significant and unavoidable. 5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: 5 - 135 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 82 PlaceWorks Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? x b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? x c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? x d) Result in inadequate emergency access? x This section is based on the report prepared by Urban Crossroads on March 9, 2020, titled One Broadway Plaza Trip Generation Evaluation (“Trip Generation Evaluation”). The Trip Generation Evaluation is contained in Appendix B. Methodology Trip Generation The Trip Generation Evaluation by Urban Crossroads compared the Proposed Project’s trip generation with the Approved Project’s Trip generation. Urban Crossroads calculated the Proposed Project’s trip generation . Table 10 presents the trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) for the proposed multifamily housing us e and the remaining other office, retail, and restaurant uses originally contemplated. The ITE trip generation rate utilized for the multifamily housin g is for developments located within City Center Core areas (as opposed to rates for developments within a general urban/suburban setting). The average rates for General Office uses located within City Center Core areas has also been utilized to estimate the trip generation for the office uses proposed in the tower, while the average rates for General Office located within general urban/suburban areas have been used to estimate traffic for the rehabilitated structures. The latest ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide any trip rate data for Specialty Retail, as such, the average rates for the Shopping Center land use (ITE Code 820) have been utilized. Similar to the 2002 Traffic Study, an AM inbound and outbound split is not reported for the Quality Res taurant land use. As such, a 50%/50% split has been assumed for the AM peak hour, consistent with the 200 2 Traffic Study. 5 - 136 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 83 Table 10 ITE Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units ITE LU Code AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) 1 DU 222 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.13 0.10 0.23 2.16 General Office 2 TSF 710 0.43 0.07 0.50 0.07 0.36 0.43 4.30 General Office 3 TSF 710 1.00 0.16 1.16 0.18 0.97 1.15 9.74 Shopping Center TSF 820 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Quality Restaurant 4 TSF 931 0.37 0.37 0.73 5.23 2.57 7.80 83.84 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant TSF 932 5.47 4.47 9.94 6.06 3.71 9.77 112.18 Source: Urban Crossroads 2020 (Appendix B) Notes: DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet 1 Based on average rates for developments located within Center City Core areas. 2 Based on average rates for ITE Land Use Code 710 for developments located within Center City Core areas (using 200,679 square feet). Daily trip generation rate not available in ITE Trip Generation Manual. Estimated based on 10 times the PM peak hour. 3 Based on average rates for ITE Land Use Code 710. 4 ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide in/out split for the AM peak hour; as such, a 50/50 split has been assumed. Based on Table 10 above, the resulting trip generation for the Proposed Project is shown on Table 11. Pass-by reduction assumptions for the shopping center, quality restaurant, and high turnover (sit-down) restaurant uses are consistent with the current ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017). A 5% reduction has also been applied to account for transit mode share, consistent with other projects in the City of Santa Ana. As shown in Table 11, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate 3,026 trip-ends per day with 261 AM peak hour trips and 325 PM peak hour trips. Table 11 Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) (Tower) 402 DU 34 55 89 54 39 93 868 Office (Tower) 253.728 TSF 109 18 127 17 92 109 1,092 Office (Rehabilitated Structures) 9.803 TSF 10 2 12 2 9 11 96 Shopping Center (Tower & Garage) 8.525 TSF 5 3 8 16 17 33 322 Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34%): 0 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -110 Shopping Center Total: 5 3 8 11 12 23 212 Quality Restaurant (Tower) 15.915 TSF 6 6 12 83 41 124 1,334 Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 44%): 0 0 0 -18 -18 -36 -588 Quality Restaurant Total: 6 6 12 65 23 88 746 High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant (Rehabilitated Structures) 2.681 TSF 15 12 27 16 10 26 302 Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 43%): 0 0 0 -4 -4 -8 -130 5 - 137 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 84 PlaceWorks Table 11 Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Total: 15 12 27 12 6 18 172 Transit Mode Share Reduction (5%): -9 -5 -14 -8 -9 -17 -160 PROPOSED PROJECT TOTAL 170 91 261 153 172 325 3,026 Source: Urban Crossroads 2020 (Appendix B) Notes: DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet Comments: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Circulation System and Roadways Based on the Trip Generation Evaluation by Urban Crossroads, the Approved Project included a total of 744 AM Peak Hour Trips, 819 PM Peak Hour Trips, and 6,686 trip-ends per day. Based on Table 11, above, the Proposed Project would generate 3,026 trip-ends per day with 261 AM peak hour trips and 325 PM peak hour trips. Table 12 below compares the Proposed Project’s trip generation with the Approved Project. As shown in Table 12, the development of the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 3,660 fewer trip-ends per day with 483 fewer AM and 494 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the Approved Project. This equates to a 65 percent reduction during the AM, 60 percent reduction during the PM peak hour, and a 55 percent reduction to daily trip-ends. As the Proposed Project would result in a reduction of trips compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not generate new impacts to the circulation system. No significant new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required . Table 12 Trip Generation Comparison Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Currently Approved 1 637 107 744 211 609 819 6,686 Proposed Project 2 170 91 261 153 172 325 3,026 Change -467 -16 -483 -58 -437 -494 -3,660 Source: Urban Crossroads 2020 (Appendix B) 1 Trip generation based on the currently approved Project per the 2002 Traffic Study. 2 Proposed Project trip generation. 5 - 138 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 85 All roadway improvements described in Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-13 are part of the Approved Project and will continue to be in effect as part of the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project would reduce the number of trips compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not require any additional roadway improvements than those required as part of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project will incorporate all mitigation measures that are part of the Proposed Project, which would further ensure that impacts to the City’s circulation systems are less than significant. Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The Proposed Project would occur within the building envelop of the Approved Project. The Proposed Proje ct would not introduce any new roadway features that may impact transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Proposed Project would comply with City of Santa Ana Municipal Code requirements and applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations. The Proposed Project will adhere to mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, which would ensure that impacts to alternative transportation remains less than significant, therefore, the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project is a mixed-use residential/office project located within a designated TPA. As a result, the Proposed Project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. As stated in the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (September 2019), projects may be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis if they have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and would consequently result in a less-than-significant transportation impact. In other words, the project should have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy’s (SCS) in order to be initially screened out. Projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) and low-VMT generating Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and are consistent with the RTP/SCS. As illustrated in Appendices A and B of the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the Proposed Project is located in a TPA and low-VMT generating TAZ. The Project is proposed to develop residential, office, retail, and restaurant uses. The mixed-use nature of the Proposed Project promotes low-VMT generation within the TAZ as well as the overall City. As discussed with the City of Santa Ana Planning Department, an increase of approximately 5,406 hous eholds is projected for the City based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) from the base year of 2016 to the forecasted year of 2045. As such, the households proposed by the Project would be consistent with the growth anticipated in the RTP/SCS for the City. Orange County currently experiences a high demand and low supply of households in the region and the Proposed Project would have the potential to serve the regional demand for households and is therefore consistent with the goals and objectives of the RTP/SCS. The Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact. The preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required. 5 - 139 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 86 PlaceWorks c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project would place multi-family residential units within an urbanized area where multi -family residential units already exist. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses. The Proposed Project would not alter access to the Project Site nor introduce new geometric design features beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Proposed Project would adhere to all identified mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, which would ensure that impacts regardin g geometric design feature are less than significant. Therefore, no significant new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required . d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Approved Project incorporates two access points to the approved eight-level parking garage. As part of the development of the Approved Project, the Approved Project incorporates street improvements, such as the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Sycamore Street and 10th Street and other roadway modifications. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s impact to surface transportation routes adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Project Site would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Proposed Project does not include any roadway modifications and as shown in Table 12, the Proposed Project would result in a reduction of project trips. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create significant new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously described impact, and the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required. 5.17.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. T-1 The developer shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) for Washington Avenue and 10th Street to operate as one-way streets which include signal modifications and appropriate protected left-turn signal at Main Street/Washington Avenue, Main Street/10th Street, Washington Avenue/Sycamore Street, Broadway Street/Washington Avenue and Broadway Street/10th Street. T-2 The project proponent shall pay for all costs for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Sycamore Street and 10th Street. T-3 The project proponent shall pay all costs to install pedestrian crosswalks and a refuge area at the intersection of Sycamore Street and 10th Street where a roundabout is to be constructed. The project developer shall be requi red to pay all costs (design, construction, administration 5 - 140 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 87 and inspection) for these mitigation measures, as they are part of the roundabout as stated in T-2. T-4 Main Street, between 17th Street and the 1-5 ramps, shall have all on-street parking stalls and parking meters removed, and Main Street shall be restriped to provide three northbound and two southbound travel lanes. The project proponent shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with these removals and re -striping when building permits are issued. T-5 Main Street, between 17th Street and Civic Center Drive, shall have all on-street parking stalls and parking meters removed and Main Street shall be re-striped to provide a third northbound through lane within the existing right-of-way. The developer shall pay all costs associated with re-striping and removing existing parking meters. T-6 The developer shall pay all costs (acquisition, design, construction, administration and inspection) for providing southbou nd right-turn lane at the intersection of Main Street and 17th Street. T-7 The developer shall pay all costs (acquisition, design, construction, administration and inspection) for providing southbound right-tu rn lane at the intersection of Broadway Street and 17th Street. T-8 Westbound Santa Clara Avenue shall be re-striped at Broadway Street to provide one left turn lane and one shared left turn/right turn lane. The project proponent shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with this re-striping when project building permits are issued. T-9 Northbound Grand Avenue from Fruit Street to 14th Street shall be re-striped at Santa Ana Boulevard/1-5 HOV ramps to provide three northbound travel lanes. The project proponen t shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with thi s re- striping when project building permits are issued. T-10 I-5 northbound off-ramp shall be re-striped to provide a westbound left turn lane, a shared left turn/right turn lane and a right turn lane at Grand Avenue. The project developer shall pay all costs (design, permitting, construction, administration and inspection) when building permits are issued. T-11 A new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Main Street and 15th Street. Communications cable and conduit required to connect th e traffic signal to the City of Santa Ana’s Traffic Signal Master System shall be a part of traffic signal installation. The project proponent shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with this signalization when project building permits are issued. T-12 A new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and French Street. Communications cable and conduit required to connect the traffic signal to the City of 5 - 141 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 88 PlaceWorks Santa Ana’s Traffic Signal Master System shall be a part of traffic signal installation. The project proponent shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with this signalization when building permits are issued. T-13 A new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Sycamore Street and 15 th Street. Communications cable and conduit required to connect the traffic signal to the City of Santa Ana’s Traffic Signal Master System shall be a part of traffic signal installation. The p roject proponent shall pay all costs (design, construction, administration and inspection) associated with this signalization when building permits are issued. T-14 The project proponent shall pay the appropriate City Transportation System Improvement Fee to help offset the One Broadway Plaza Projects’ impact on the City of Santa Ana street system. T-15 The developer should coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to identify ways to enhance transit use by tenants of One Broadway Plaza. The project developer shall install a bus stop, bus transit or any other transit related improvements if requested by the OCTA. T-16 The project proponent shall satisfy the relevant requirements of the City’s TDM Ordinance, including conformity of site plans with facility standards specified in the TDM Ordinance, and submission and implementation of a TDM strategy plan and program. T-17 The project developer shall contribute to neighborhood traffic studies for the six neighborhoods evaluated in Section 3.5.8 of the Certified EIR (including before and after traffic counts) in order to assess any intrusion of project traffic into these neig hborhoods. If traffic intrusion attributable to the project is identified, corrective measures will be identified. Depending of the potential impacts, examples of corrective measures could include; forced - turn channelization, semi-diverters, diagonal diverters and cul-de-sacs. If approved by the neighborhoods per the City’s Procedures for Neighborhood Traffic Plans, corrective measures will be implemented at a maximum cost to the developer of $200,000 per neighborhood. The funds to implement the improvements are directly payable to the City of Santa Ana prior to issuance of building permits. T-18 The project parking garag e entrances/exits shall be designed to meet City sight distance standards. A landscaped median shall be constructed at the intersection of Broadway at the parking structure egress to restrict left turn movements from of vehicles exiting on Broadway subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The project proponent shall pay all costs associated with this median prior to building permits being issued. T-19 To assure use of onsite parking as intended, the project proponent or their successor will require that all residential and commercial tenants leases specify that residents and employees must park onsite within the One Broadway Plaza parking garage. In addition, the property manager will require that parking personnel patrol adjoining properties on a daily 5 - 142 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 89 basis to enforce such lease provisions. This daily patrol will be performed by a uniformed parking employee driving a utility vehicle that will be signed to identify it as a part of the One Broadway Plaza Management. The areas to be patrolled will be marked on a grid map of the streets surrounding One Broadway Plaza. T-20 The project developer shall provide pedestrian access aroun d the project site during project construction activities and post appropriate sign s around the site directing pedestrians to use the sidewalks across the street from the project site. Permanent sidewalks shall be installed around the project site to provide for pedestrians access to the site. T-21 Prior to approval of the project plans, the project proponent will file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. Conditions placed on the project by the FAA will be incorporated in the final design and construction of the project office tower. T-22 Prior to approval of the project plans, the project propon ent shall take the project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission for a review and consistency determination. T-23 After certification of the project Final EIR, the project proponent shall apply to the Caltrans Aeronautics Department for a State helipad Permit. T-24 There is no measure T-24. T-25 Vehicles traveling westbound on Washington Avenue shall be diverted either northbound or southbound at Main Street. T-26 Vehicles traveling eastbound on Tenth Street shall be diverted either northbound or southbound at Main Street. 5 - 143 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 90 PlaceWorks 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.18.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis Tribal Cultural Resources was not analyzed as a topic in the prior Certified EIR but was addressed in the Cultural Resources topic. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project’s location in the Santa Ana floodplain and the limited number of Native American remains found or recorded in the immediate area, the potential for finding buried prehistoric remains low. However, the possibility exists of unearthing prehistoric remains with deeper excavations. The Certified EIR implemented mitigation measures CR -5 through CR-8 to reduce the impact of to find to a less than significant level. 5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. x 5 - 144 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 91 On March 10, 2020, the City of Santa Ana sent certified tribal consultation letters to 10 Native American contacts notifying them of the Proposed Project pursuant to SB 18 . As of March 19, 2020, no tribal consultation requests have been received. Comments: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Proposed Project amends the existing entitlements of the Approved Project, to allow for residential uses. The Proposed Project would not result in new excavations or earthwork activities that have the potential to unearth tribal cultural resources. As such, the Proposed Project would not have the possibility of unearthing tribal resources. Further on March 10, 2020, the City of Santa Ana sent certified tribal consultation letters pursuant to SB 18. As of March 19, 2020, no tribal consultation requests have been received. No significant new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the Certified EIR with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources and a subsequent EIR is not required. 5.18.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Pr oposed Project Refer to the Cultural Resources Section CR-5 through CR-8. 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.19.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, water, and telephone services. The Approved Project would increase the generation of wastewater, soil waste, and runoff. The Certified EIR found that the construction of the Approved Project would require the removal of electrical facilities, gas lines, phone lines, and water and sewer lines to allow for Approved Project improvements. The Approved Project would install replacement utilities infrastructure and/or pay its fair-share where needed. The Approved Project would contribute a fair-share contribution to upgrade storm drains. The Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact to telephone service; telephone easements on the Project Site would be consolidated. The Approved Project was found to create a significant and unavoidable impact with the interference of television signals from area television stations. 5 - 145 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 92 PlaceWorks The Approved Project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including the City’s recycling program. The project contractor would be required to recycle demolition and construction debris. The Approved Project was found to result in no impact. 5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? x b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? x c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? x d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? x e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? x This section is partially based on the report prepared by DMc Engineering on March 3, 2020, titled Water and Sewer Comparison for the One Broadway Plaza (“Water and Sewer Study”). The Water and Sewer Study is contained in Appendix C. 5 - 146 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 93 Comments: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects ? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Water As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would increase water use within the City, thus potentially increasing the need for water treatment services, but would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project would implement appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts related to construction of water improvements required to serve the Proposed Project. Impacts would remain less than significant and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. Wastewater As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would increase wastewater generation, thus potentially increasing the need for wastewater treatment services, but would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project would implement appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts related to construction of wastewater improvements required to serve the Proposed Project. Impacts would remain less than significant and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. Stormwater The Proposed Project would not increase the building footprint and would therefore not affect the imperviousness of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subseque nt EIR. Electric Power The Certified EIR found that Southern California Edison (SCE) has sufficient capacity to meet the project - generated demand for electricity. The Approved Project would not require electricity services beyond those planned or readily available or a substantial expansion of existing facilities. With the incorporation of identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities beyond what was approved as part of the Approved Project. No significant new impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required. 5 - 147 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 94 PlaceWorks Natural Gas The Certified EIR found that Southern California Gas Company would be served by an existing gas main, and the Approved Project would not require natural gas facilities beyond those planned or readily available or a substantial expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project would not substantially increase demands beyond the available supply and with implementation of appropriate mitigation to promote conservation of energy, impacts would remain less than significant and the preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be required. Telecommunications As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to telecommunication services. The Proposed Project would be contained within the building envelope of the Approved Project; therefore, the Proposed Project would not disrupt telecommunication lines with construction. A less than significant impact would occur with regards to telecommunication. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. Television Signals The Proposed Project would be contained within the building envelope of the Approved Project. As such, the Proposed Project would not add additional building height or expand the building which may contribute further disrupt television signals. The Proposed Project would therefore result in a less than significant impact. The Proposed Project would comply with identified mitigation measures. The Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. There is a 12-inch water line adjacent to the Project Site running along Broadway street. According to the Water and Sewer Study prepared by DMc Engineering (dated March 3, 2020, and contained in Appendix C), shows that the current entitled water demand is estimated to be approximately 46,621 gallons per day. The Proposed Project’s estimated water demand is 70,171gpd, as outlined in Table 13 below. 5 - 148 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 95 Table 13 Proposed Project Water Demand Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor Project DU, capita or Acreage Daily Water Usage (gpd) Office (commercial) 0.09 gpd/sf 2 259,002 sf 23,311 Apartments (high-rise residential) – 402 units 1 110 gpd/capita 3 426 capita 4 46,860 Total Proposed Water Demand 70,171 Total Current Entitled Water Flow (46,621) Project Net Water Demand (Project – Current) +23,550 Notes: 1 Note that the Water and Sewer Study (contained in Appendix C) analyzed up to 415 units. The Proposed Project is 402 units, which would result in reduced impact. 2 Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.09 gpd/sf) 3 Unit Water Demand Factors was taken from the City of Santa Ana Water and Sewer Design Guidelines (110 gpd/capita) 4 Capacity was assumed at 1 person per bedroom (426 capita) for the 402 apartments The Proposed Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure U-7, which requires the developer to pay their fair share amount for the necessary facilities to accommodate project-related water supplies, and Mitigation Measure U-10, which requires the project developer to pay all costs for the construction of a new 8 -inch waterline. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Water and Sewer Study and determined that with incorporation of identified mitigation measures no new significant impact would result from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. There is a 15-inch sewer line adjacent to the Project Site and running along N. Broadway. Table 14 below outlines the proposed conditions for wastewater service. Table 14 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor 1 Project DU, capita or Square Footage Total Average Wastewater Generation (gpd) Total Peak Flow Wastewater Generation (cfs) 2 Office (commercial) 0.0765 gpd/sf 259,002 sf 19,814 gpd 0.09 cfs Apartments (residential) 127.5 gpd/unit 402 units 3 51,255 gpd 0.24 cfs Total Proposed Wastewater Generation 71,069 gpd 0.33 Total Current Entitled Wastewater Flow (39,628) gpd (0.18) cfs Project Net Wastewater Flow (Project – Current) +31,441 gpd +0.15 cfs Notes: 1 Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.0765 gpd/sf & 127.5 gpd/unit) 2 Peak Flow = 3 * Average Daily Flow 3 Note that the Water and Sewer Study (contained in Appendix C) analyzed up to 415 units. The Proposed Project is 402 units, which would result in reduced impact. 5 - 149 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 96 PlaceWorks The Proposed Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure U-10, which requires the project developer to pay all costs for the construction of a new 6 -inch sewer line. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Water and Sewer Study and determined that with incorporation of identified mitig ation measures no new significant impact would result from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Approved Project would generate 3,397 lbs/day or solid waste. Based on Table 1 5 below, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 3,214 lbs/day of solid waste, which represents a net decrease of 183 lbs/day of solid waste. As such, the Proposed Project would be within the approved capacity of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with all local and State standards regulating the production, disposal, recycling, and handling of solid waste (including AB341). The Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. Table 15 Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Land Use Solid Waste Generation Factor Project DU or square footage Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day) Office (commercial) 0.006 lbs/sf/day 259,002 sf 1,554 Apartments (high-rise residential) 4 lbs/du/day 402 du 1,608 Total Proposed Solid Waste Generation 3,162 Total Current Entitled Solid Waste Generation (3,397) Project Net Solid Waste Generation (Project – Current) (235) Source: CalRecycle, 2019. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Assembly Bill 341 became effective in July 2012 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 . Assembly Bill 341 further mandates commercial and multifamily recycling. In 2017, the City diverts 67 percent of its solid waste generated. The City of Santa Ana implements various recycling programs and meets the State’s mandated diversion goal (City of Santa Ana 2020). Proposed Project would be consistent with AB 341. The Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.19.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures have been carried through from the One Broadway Plaza EIR. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into MMRP for this Addendum. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text. 5 - 150 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 97 U-1 The project developer shall coordinate with SCE prior to construction to d etermine the exact location of all underground and overhead electrical facilities or taking action which could damage such facilities or interfere with their operations. The Contractor shall protect all electrical facilities and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. U-2 All new electrical lines shall be placed underground as required by the City of Santa Ana. U-3 The project developer shall coordinate with SCGC prior to construction to determine the exact location of all underground natural gas facilities and take action to prevent damage to these facilities or interference with their operations. The Contractor sha ll protect all natural gas pipelines and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. U-4 The project developer shall coordinate with Adelphia (formerly Comcast) prior to construction to determine the exact location of all underground cable facilities or taking action which could damage such facilities or interfere with their operations. The Contracto r shall protect all existing cable lines and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. U-5 The project developer shall coordinate with Pacific Bell prior to construction to determine the exact location of all underground telephone facilities or taking action which could damage such facilities or interfere with their operations. The Contractor shall protect all existin g telephone lines and associated structures to be left on the project site from damage. U-6 Prior to the issuance of g rading permits, the project developer shall demonstrate to the City of Santa Ana that all construction related waste generated on site would be recycled wherever feasible as the first choice of disposal method, leaving the option of landfill disposal as a last alternative. The proposed commercial use shall incorporate facilities for collection and pick - up of recyclable materials into the design of the project office building. The project developer shall coordinate with City staff to develop appropriate recycling programs for this project. U-7 The project developer shall coordinate with the Santa Ana Water Utility prior to construction to determine the exact location of all existing underground water facilities and take action to prevent damage to these facilities to be left on the project site or interference with their operations. The project developer shall also pay their fair share amount for the necessary facilities to accommodate project-related water supplies. U-8 The project developer shall coordinate with CSDOC and the City of Santa Ana Public Works Department prior to construction to determine the exact location of all underground sew er facilities and take action to prevent damage to these facilities or interference with their operations. The Contractor shall protect all sewer lines and associated structures that will be left on the project site from damage. 5 - 151 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 98 PlaceWorks U-9 The project developer shall pay their fair share amount, as determined by the City of Santa Ana, to construct the proposed storm drain system serving the project site to Broadway Street in accordance with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage. U-10 The project developer shall pay all costs for the construction of a new 8-inch waterline and a 6-inch sewer to be constructed within Washington Avenue and 10th Street to replace these lines abandoned in a portion of Sycamore Street. 5.20 WILDFIRE 5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR Wildfire was not analyzed as a topic in the prior One Broadway Plaza Certified EIR; however, it was addressed as part of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section and was scoped out in the Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that the Project Site is located in an urban area. The Approved Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including wildland fires that occur on land adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Initial Study further determined that the Project Site is not subject to mudflows due to the flat topography. 5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Proposed Project: Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? x b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? x c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? x 5 - 152 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 99 Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? x The Project Site (and the City of Santa Ana) is not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to CalFire. The Project Site is also not within or near in a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Comments: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Initial Study for the Approved Project states that there are no designated emergency evacuation rou tes in the City. As with the Approved Project, operation of the Proposed Project could interfere with response times of emergency vehicles but after implementation of appropriate mitigation would assure that impacts would remain less than significant. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-9 would ensure that the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to police protection, and fire and emergency services. Specifically, Mitigation Measures PS-8 would ensure that emergency vehicles receive green lights with preemption detectors at identified intersections. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially impact an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Proposed Project is located in an urban environment and is surrounded by existing development. There are no wildland areas, nor wildland interface areas located in the vicinity. Consequently, no wildland fires would affect, or be affected by implementation of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur for the Proposed Project and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5 - 153 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 100 PlaceWorks c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Proposed Project is located in an urban environment and is surrounded by existing development. Installation or maintenance of associated infrastructures would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary ongoing impacts to the environment as wildland nor wildland interface areas exist at or around the Project Site area. No impact would occur for the Proposed Project and no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Prepar ation of an EIR. As discussed in the Certified EIR, the Project Site is flat and located in an urbanized area. The Project Site is not subject to landslides or slope instability. The Project Site is not located in or adjacent to wildland area. As with the Approved Project, adherence to appropriate mitigation would assure that impacts related to runoff and drainage changes for the Proposed Project would remain less than significant. As documented in this analysis, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects and is consistent with the Certified EIR and would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. 5.20.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project Refer to Mitigation Measure PS-1 through PS-9 under the Section 5.15, Public Services. 5 - 154 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis March 2020 Page 101 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Issues Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circum-stances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) x c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x Comments: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of a n EIR. The Project Site does not contain any significant biological resources. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts to biological or cultural resources, nor would it substantially increase the severity of impacts evaluated and determined in the Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an Addendu m to the Certified EIR is the appropriate document type for the Proposed Project. 5 - 155 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 5. Environmental Analysis Page 102 PlaceWorks b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are c onsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. With approval of the discretionary requests, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the amount of development planned for the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in any new cumulatively considerable impacts or substantially increase the severity of the cumulative effects previously disclosed in the Certified EIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of impacts evaluated and determined in the Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria i dentified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate document type for the Proposed Project. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of impacts eval uated and determined in the Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project would not meet any of the criteria identified in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate document type for the Proposed Project. 5 - 156 March 2020 Page 103 6. List of Preparers 6.1 CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency, Planning Division Vince C. Fregoso, AICP Planning Manager Public Works Agency Nabil Saba Executive Director Mir T. Fattahi, MsCE, P.E. Consultant Engineer 6.2 PLACEWORKS William Halligan, Esq. Managing Principal, Environmental Services Mariana Zimmermann Associate Gina Froelich Senior Editor Cary Nakama Graphic Artist 5 - 157 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 6. List of Preparers Page 104 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 158 March 2020 Page 105 7. References California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. ———. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. ———. 2018, February. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb2018.pdf. California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1998, April 15. Earthqua ke Zones of Required Investigation Orange Quadrangle. ———. 2020, February 20 (accessed). Fault Activity Map of California (2010) https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CalFire). 2011, October. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map30.pdf. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates . California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020, February 26 (accessed). EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ Dolinka Group, LLC. 2014, February 27. Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. Santa Ana Unified School District. Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector. 2019. Treasurer-Tax Collector. http://tax.ocgov.com/tcweb/map_disclaimer_main.asp Santa Ana, City of. 2020, March 2 (accessed). Santa Ana Recycles – You Make the Difference! https://www.santa-ana.org/green/recycling-programs ———. 2020, February 3. Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. https://www.santa- ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/documents/SA Register of Historic Properties 2.3.20.pdf ———. 2019, July. City Budget Detail. https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/finance/budget/2019- 2020/e-Budget%20Book_0.pdf 5 - 159 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA 7. References Page 106 PlaceWorks ———. 2017, March 16. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. ———. 2013, February. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan ———. 1982, September 20 (adopted). City of Santa Ana General Pl an. Southern California Association of Governmen ts (SCAG). 2016a, April. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf ———. 2016b. Demographics and Growth Forecast. 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Appendix. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2020, February 26 (accessed). GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment: Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca58525768500 5bf252.html. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019 (version). EJSCREEN. https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020, February 21 (accessed). National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html 5 - 160 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix March 2020 Appendix A Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Memo 5 - 161 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 162 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo March 5, 2020 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. 1103 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 SUBJECT: ONE BROADWAY PLAZA AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS MEMORANDUM Dear Mr. Mike Harrah: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for One Broadway Plaza development which is located on the northeast corner of Broadway and 10 th Street in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of this work effort is to assess the potential changes in air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the update to the uses proposed for the Project. The Project consists of the development of 402 multifamily residential dwelling units in place of 254,472 square feet of office use. BACKGROUND The Project is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow the development of residential uses (at the density/intensity proposed) for the One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) Specific Development District (SD) 75. Currently, SD75 allows for the development of a 37 - story tower with 518,000 square feet of office uses, a destination restaurant at the top two levels of the tower, and residential uses are not current ly permitted. The following assessment is in support of the proposed addendum to the Environment Impact Report (EIR). CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT The previous Final Environmental Impact Report for One Way Broadway Plaza (FEIR) (August 2004) was prepared by P&D Consultants and analyzed a 37-story building and surrounding rehabilitated structures, which are broken down by use below in Table 1. The Project also includes an 8-level freestanding parking structure with approximately 2,100 parking spaces (1). 5 - 163 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo TABLE 1: CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Square Feet1 Office Building 508,200 Rehabilitated Office 9,803 Retail 8,525 Formal Dining 15,915 Casual Dining 2,681 TOTAL 545,124 1 Source: Air Quality Assessment For: One Broadway Plaza, January 2002 CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USES OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS The operational-source emissions for the currently approved land uses were reported in the FEIR and are summarized on Table 2 (1). As shown on Table 2, operational-source emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of NOX. TABLE 2: CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USES OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY Emissions (lbs/day)1 VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 31.60 76.10 462.20 41.30 8.50 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO lbs/day = Pounds Per Day Source: Final Environmental Impact Report for One Broadway Plaza, August 2004. 1 The FEIR did not identify emissions from PM2.5. CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USES GHG EMISSIONS It should be noted that the FEIR did not quantify GHG emissions. As such, GHG emissions were calculated employing the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. The estimated GHG emissions for the currently approved land uses are summarized on Table 3. As shown on Table 3, Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses would generate a total of approximately 10,009.23 MTCO2e per year. 5 - 164 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo TABLE 3: CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USES GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Area Source 0.01 4.00E-05 0.00 0.01 Energy Source 3,072.67 0.12 0.03 3,084.87 Mobile Sources 5,901.29 0.26 0.00 5,907.81 Waste 109.03 6.44 0.00 270.11 Water Usage 641.58 3.23 0.08 746.43 Total CO2e (All Sources) 10,009.23 MT/yr = Metric Tons Per Year PROPOSED PROJECT The Project is proposing to develop a mixed-use development with both residential and office uses at One Broadway Plaza. The Project requires a General Plan Land Use Element amendment to permit residential development within the OBPDC. The One Broadway Plaza building includes 518,000 square feet of office uses. Approximately 50% (254,472 square feet) is proposed for a total of 402 apartment units. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS Operational-source air quality impacts were modeled employing the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Maximum daily operational-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by operations of the Proposed Project are summarized on Table 4. As indicated, air pollutant emissions generated by operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria emissions. 5 - 165 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 12.98 0.39 33.31 1.75E-03 0.18 0.18 Energy Source 0.35 3.11 2.13 0.02 0.24 0.24 Mobile Source 5.84 20.70 59.56 0.19 16.35 4.50 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 19.18 24.20 94.99 0.22 16.77 4.93 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 12.98 0.39 33.31 1.75E-03 0.18 0.18 Energy Source 0.35 3.11 2.13 0.02 0.24 0.24 Mobile Source 5.76 21.13 58.61 0.19 16.35 4.50 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 19.10 24.63 94.05 0.21 16.77 4.93 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO GHG EMISSIONS PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS GHG emissions impacts were modeled employing the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. As shown on Table 5, Proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 6,415.16 MTCO2e per year. TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Area Source 6.78 6.62E-03 0.00 6.94 Energy Source 2,568.56 0.09 0.03 2,579.25 Mobile Sources 2,979.94 0.14 0.00 2,983.43 Waste 98.23 5.82 0.00 244.09 Water Usage 516.89 2.60 0.07 601.44 Total CO2e (All Sources) 6,415.16 5 - 166 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON Table 6 compares peak operational-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by Proposed Project with peak operational-source criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. As indicated at Table 6, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in peak operational-source VOC, NOX, CO, and SOX emissions when compared to peak operational- source criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. It should be noted that Proposed Project would reduce NOX impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantively different or substantively increased operational-source air quality impacts than the emissions associated with the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. TABLE 6: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS COMPARISON Operational Activities Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project 19.18 24.63 94.99 0.22 16.77 4.93 Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza Land Uses 31.60 76.10 462.20 41.30 8.50 - Variance (Proposed Project – Currently Approved) -12.42 -51.47 -367.21 -41.08 8.27 N/A GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON Table 7 compares GHG emissions of the Proposed Project with GHG emissions generated by the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. As indicated at Table 7, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions (approximately 36 percent less). The Proposed Project would therefore not result in new or substantively different or substantively increased GHG emissions impacts than the emissions associated with the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. TABLE 7: GHG COMPARISON Emission Source Annual Emissions (MTCO2e) Proposed Project 6,415.16 Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza Land Uses 10,009.23 Variance (Proposed Project – Currently Approved) -3,594.07 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis presented here, air pollutant emissions generated by Proposed Project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Nor would the Proposed Project otherwise generate or 5 - 167 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo result in air pollutant emissions or air pollutant e missions concentrations that would result in potentially adverse impacts. Moreover, in comparison to the emissions generated by the uses under the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses, operational-source NOX impacts would be comparatively diminished under the Proposed Project. No changed or new information has been identified to indicate that the potential for the Proposed Project to result in impacts that would be substantively greater than or different from those that would result from development of the Currently Approved One Broadway Plaza land uses. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5987. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Haseeb Qureshi, Associate Principal 5 - 168 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo REFERENCES 1. P&D Consultants. Final Environmental Impact Report for One Broadway Plaza. 2004. 5 - 169 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo ATTACHMENT A CALEEMOD EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS 5 - 170 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 253.73 1000sqft 0.00 253,728.00 0 Office Park 9.80 1000sqft 0.00 9,803.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2.68 1000sqft 0.00 2,681.00 0 Quality Restaurant 15.91 1000sqft 0.00 15,915.00 0 Apartments High Rise 402.00 Dwelling Unit 4.32 254,472.00 1150 Strip Mall 8.53 1000sqft 0.00 8,525.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) Orange County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 1 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 171 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total Lot Area = 4.32 ac Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off-road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Vehicle Trips - Trip Characteristics based on the One Broadway Plaze Trip Generation Evaluation by Urban Crossroads, Inc. Woodstoves - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Area Coating - Water And Wastewater - Solid Waste - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 253,730.00 253,728.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,800.00 9,803.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,680.00 2,681.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 15,910.00 15,915.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 402,000.00 254,472.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 8,530.00 8,525.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.82 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.48 4.32 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.20 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 2 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 172 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 20.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 18.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 34.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 37.00 57.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 38.00 56.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 66.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.98 2.16 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 4.31 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 122.40 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 2.21 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 90.04 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 46.12 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 3.65 2.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 4.31 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 142.64 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.70 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 71.97 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 21.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.20 2.16 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 4.31 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 112.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 9.79 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 83.82 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 37.77 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 3 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 173 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 4 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 174 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 5 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 175 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.282 8 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.640 7 Energy 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mobile 6.5715 25.3382 79.5946 0.2775 23.5426 0.2734 23.8161 6.2955 0.2565 6.5520 28,137.94 14 28,137.94 14 1.2078 28,168.13 76 Total 125.2444 37.1767 319.4719 0.8199 23.5426 31.4068 54.9494 6.2955 31.3899 37.6853 3,765.501 2 39,257.65 14 43,023.15 26 12.5690 0.3257 43,434.43 03 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Energy 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mobile 5.8407 20.7035 59.5580 0.1946 16.1503 0.1953 16.3455 4.3187 0.1831 4.5018 19,736.07 50 19,736.07 50 0.8941 19,758.42 74 Total 19.1752 24.2012 94.9975 0.2155 16.1503 0.6205 16.7708 4.3187 0.6084 4.9271 0.0000 23,619.78 50 23,619.78 50 1.0258 0.0701 23,666.32 11 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 6 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 176 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/28/2020 2/24/2020 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 84.69 34.90 70.26 73.72 31.40 98.02 69.48 31.40 98.06 86.93 100.00 39.83 45.10 91.84 78.47 45.51 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 7 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 177 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 8 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 178 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 9 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 179 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 5.8407 20.7035 59.5580 0.1946 16.1503 0.1953 16.3455 4.3187 0.1831 4.5018 19,736.07 50 19,736.07 50 0.8941 19,758.42 74 Unmitigated 6.5715 25.3382 79.5946 0.2775 23.5426 0.2734 23.8161 6.2955 0.2565 6.5520 28,137.94 14 28,137.94 14 1.2078 28,168.13 76 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments High Rise 868.32 868.32 868.32 2,967,181 2,035,486 General Office Building 1,093.58 1,093.58 1093.58 3,522,913 2,416,719 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)301.88 328.03 382.28 584,717 401,116 Office Park 95.94 21.66 6.86 245,304 168,278 Quality Restaurant 1,333.58 1,432.54 1145.04 2,470,857 1,695,008 Strip Mall 322.18 393.40 179.98 714,239 489,968 Total 4,015.47 4,137.53 3,676.06 10,505,212 7,206,576 Increase Density Increase Diversity Improve Destination Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 10 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 180 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments High Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 57 0 43 Office Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 56 0 44 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 66 0 34 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments High Rise 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 General Office Building 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Office Park 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Quality Restaurant 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Strip Mall 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 11 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 181 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 12 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 182 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments High Rise 12585.9 0.1357 1.1599 0.4936 7.4000e- 003 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 1,480.689 4 1,480.689 4 0.0284 0.0272 1,489.488 4 General Office Building 6353.63 0.0685 0.6229 0.5232 3.7400e- 003 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 747.4856 747.4856 0.0143 0.0137 751.9275 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1904.76 0.0205 0.1867 0.1569 1.1200e- 003 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 224.0893 224.0893 4.3000e- 003 4.1100e- 003 225.4209 Office Park 305.37 3.2900e- 003 0.0299 0.0252 1.8000e- 004 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 35.9259 35.9259 6.9000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 36.1394 Quality Restaurant 11307.1 0.1219 1.1085 0.9312 6.6500e- 003 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 1,330.242 6 1,330.242 6 0.0255 0.0244 1,338.147 6 Strip Mall 46.7123 5.0000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 5.4956 5.4956 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.5282 Total 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 13 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 183 No Hearths Installed 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments High Rise 12.5859 0.1357 1.1599 0.4936 7.4000e- 003 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 1,480.689 4 1,480.689 4 0.0284 0.0272 1,489.488 4 General Office Building 6.35363 0.0685 0.6229 0.5232 3.7400e- 003 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 747.4856 747.4856 0.0143 0.0137 751.9275 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.90476 0.0205 0.1867 0.1569 1.1200e- 003 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 224.0893 224.0893 4.3000e- 003 4.1100e- 003 225.4209 Office Park 0.30537 3.2900e- 003 0.0299 0.0252 1.8000e- 004 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 35.9259 35.9259 6.9000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 36.1394 Quality Restaurant 11.3071 0.1219 1.1085 0.9312 6.6500e- 003 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 1,330.242 6 1,330.242 6 0.0255 0.0244 1,338.147 6 Strip Mall 0.0467123 5.0000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 5.4956 5.4956 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.5282 Total 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 14 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 184 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Unmitigated 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.282 8 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.640 7 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.1744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.7935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 105.3385 8.3408 204.4378 0.5215 30.7081 30.7081 30.7081 30.7081 3,765.501 2 7,236.000 0 11,001.501 2 11.2295 0.2556 11,358.399 0 Landscaping 1.0161 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 61.2417 Total 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.28 29 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.64 07 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 15 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 185 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.1744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.7935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0161 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 61.2417 Total 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 16 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 186 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:25 AMPage 17 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Summer 5 - 187 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 253.73 1000sqft 0.00 253,728.00 0 Office Park 9.80 1000sqft 0.00 9,803.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2.68 1000sqft 0.00 2,681.00 0 Quality Restaurant 15.91 1000sqft 0.00 15,915.00 0 Apartments High Rise 402.00 Dwelling Unit 4.32 254,472.00 1150 Strip Mall 8.53 1000sqft 0.00 8,525.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) Orange County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 1 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 188 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total Lot Area = 4.32 ac Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off-road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Vehicle Trips - Trip Characteristics based on the One Broadway Plaze Trip Generation Evaluation by Urban Crossroads, Inc. Woodstoves - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Area Coating - Water And Wastewater - Solid Waste - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 253,730.00 253,728.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,800.00 9,803.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,680.00 2,681.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 15,910.00 15,915.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 402,000.00 254,472.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 8,530.00 8,525.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.82 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.48 4.32 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.20 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 2 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 189 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 20.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 18.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 34.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 37.00 57.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 38.00 56.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 66.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.98 2.16 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 4.31 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 122.40 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 2.21 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 90.04 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 46.12 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 3.65 2.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 4.31 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 142.64 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.70 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 71.97 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 21.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.20 2.16 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 4.31 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 112.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 9.79 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 83.82 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 37.77 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 3 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 190 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 4 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 191 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 5 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 192 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.282 8 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.640 7 Energy 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mobile 6.4776 26.0321 76.9240 0.2649 23.5426 0.2748 23.8175 6.2955 0.2578 6.5533 26,873.13 39 26,873.13 39 1.2077 26,903.32 58 Total 125.1506 37.8707 316.8013 0.8073 23.5426 31.4082 54.9508 6.2955 31.3912 37.6867 3,765.501 2 37,992.84 39 41,758.34 51 12.5688 0.3257 42,169.61 86 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Energy 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mobile 5.7618 21.1328 58.6083 0.1857 16.1503 0.1967 16.3469 4.3187 0.1844 4.5031 18,838.77 59 18,838.77 59 0.9020 18,861.32 69 Total 19.0963 24.6305 94.0478 0.2066 16.1503 0.6219 16.7722 4.3187 0.6097 4.9284 0.0000 22,722.48 59 22,722.48 59 1.0337 0.0701 22,769.22 06 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 6 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 193 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/28/2020 2/24/2020 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 84.74 34.96 70.31 74.42 31.40 98.02 69.48 31.40 98.06 86.92 100.00 40.19 45.59 91.78 78.47 46.01 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 7 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 194 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 8 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 195 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 9 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 196 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 5.7618 21.1328 58.6083 0.1857 16.1503 0.1967 16.3469 4.3187 0.1844 4.5031 18,838.77 59 18,838.77 59 0.9020 18,861.32 69 Unmitigated 6.4776 26.0321 76.9240 0.2649 23.5426 0.2748 23.8175 6.2955 0.2578 6.5533 26,873.13 39 26,873.13 39 1.2077 26,903.32 58 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments High Rise 868.32 868.32 868.32 2,967,181 2,035,486 General Office Building 1,093.58 1,093.58 1093.58 3,522,913 2,416,719 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)301.88 328.03 382.28 584,717 401,116 Office Park 95.94 21.66 6.86 245,304 168,278 Quality Restaurant 1,333.58 1,432.54 1145.04 2,470,857 1,695,008 Strip Mall 322.18 393.40 179.98 714,239 489,968 Total 4,015.47 4,137.53 3,676.06 10,505,212 7,206,576 Increase Density Increase Diversity Improve Destination Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 10 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 197 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments High Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 57 0 43 Office Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 56 0 44 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 66 0 34 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments High Rise 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 General Office Building 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Office Park 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Quality Restaurant 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Strip Mall 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 11 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 198 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 12 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 199 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments High Rise 12585.9 0.1357 1.1599 0.4936 7.4000e- 003 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 1,480.689 4 1,480.689 4 0.0284 0.0272 1,489.488 4 General Office Building 6353.63 0.0685 0.6229 0.5232 3.7400e- 003 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 747.4856 747.4856 0.0143 0.0137 751.9275 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1904.76 0.0205 0.1867 0.1569 1.1200e- 003 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 224.0893 224.0893 4.3000e- 003 4.1100e- 003 225.4209 Office Park 305.37 3.2900e- 003 0.0299 0.0252 1.8000e- 004 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 35.9259 35.9259 6.9000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 36.1394 Quality Restaurant 11307.1 0.1219 1.1085 0.9312 6.6500e- 003 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 1,330.242 6 1,330.242 6 0.0255 0.0244 1,338.147 6 Strip Mall 46.7123 5.0000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 5.4956 5.4956 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.5282 Total 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 13 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 200 No Hearths Installed 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments High Rise 12.5859 0.1357 1.1599 0.4936 7.4000e- 003 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 0.0938 1,480.689 4 1,480.689 4 0.0284 0.0272 1,489.488 4 General Office Building 6.35363 0.0685 0.6229 0.5232 3.7400e- 003 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 0.0473 747.4856 747.4856 0.0143 0.0137 751.9275 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1.90476 0.0205 0.1867 0.1569 1.1200e- 003 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 224.0893 224.0893 4.3000e- 003 4.1100e- 003 225.4209 Office Park 0.30537 3.2900e- 003 0.0299 0.0252 1.8000e- 004 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 2.2800e- 003 35.9259 35.9259 6.9000e- 004 6.6000e- 004 36.1394 Quality Restaurant 11.3071 0.1219 1.1085 0.9312 6.6500e- 003 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 0.0843 1,330.242 6 1,330.242 6 0.0255 0.0244 1,338.147 6 Strip Mall 0.0467123 5.0000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 3.8500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 5.4956 5.4956 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.5282 Total 0.3505 3.1126 2.1338 0.0191 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 0.2422 3,823.928 3 3,823.928 3 0.0733 0.0701 3,846.652 0 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 14 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 201 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Unmitigated 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.282 8 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.640 7 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.1744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.7935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 105.3385 8.3408 204.4378 0.5215 30.7081 30.7081 30.7081 30.7081 3,765.501 2 7,236.000 0 11,001.501 2 11.2295 0.2556 11,358.39 90 Landscaping 1.0161 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 61.2417 Total 118.3224 8.7260 237.7435 0.5233 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 30.8912 3,765.501 2 7,295.781 7 11,061.28 29 11.2879 0.2556 11,419.64 07 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 15 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 202 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.1744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.7935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0161 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 61.2417 Total 12.9840 0.3851 33.3056 1.7500e- 003 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.0000 59.7817 59.7817 0.0584 0.0000 61.2417 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 16 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 203 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 10:24 AMPage 17 of 17 One Broadway Plaza (Proposed Project) - Orange County, Winter 5 - 204 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 508.20 1000sqft 4.32 508,200.00 0 Office Park 9.80 1000sqft 0.00 9,803.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2.68 1000sqft 0.00 2,681.00 0 Quality Restaurant 15.91 1000sqft 0.00 15,915.00 0 Strip Mall 8.53 1000sqft 0.00 8,525.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) Orange County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 1 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 205 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total Project Area = 4.32 ac Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off-road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Area Mitigation - Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates based on 2002 EIR Traffic Study & ITE 6th Edition Rates CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 2 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 206 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,800.00 9,803.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,680.00 2,681.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 15,910.00 15,915.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 8,530.00 8,525.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 11.67 4.32 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.20 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 2.37 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.19 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 2.37 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 49.97 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.98 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 65.92 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.98 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 25.24 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 9.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.17 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 11.01 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 40.67 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 3 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 207 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 4 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 208 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Energy 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 3,072.666 2 3,072.666 2 0.1155 0.0313 3,084.869 8 Mobile 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 109.0285 0.0000 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1989 610.3855 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Total 3.7648 6.7775 18.9581 0.0670 5.5319 0.1012 5.6331 1.4814 0.0971 1.5786 140.2274 9,584.358 8 9,724.586 3 10.0491 0.1121 10,009.23 02 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 5 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 209 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Energy 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 3,072.666 2 3,072.666 2 0.1155 0.0313 3,084.869 8 Mobile 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 109.0285 0.0000 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1989 610.3855 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Total 3.7648 6.7775 18.9581 0.0670 5.5319 0.1012 5.6331 1.4814 0.0971 1.5786 140.2274 9,584.358 8 9,724.586 3 10.0491 0.1121 10,009.23 02 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/28/2020 1/27/2020 5 0 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 6 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 210 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 7 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 211 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 8 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 212 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 9 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 213 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Unmitigated 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Office Building 4,624.62 1,204.43 498.04 11,424,944 11,424,944 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)174.66 212.23 176.67 245,733 245,733 Office Park 107.90 23.23 9.60 276,238 276,238 Quality Restaurant 1,431.10 1,501.27 1148.07 1,994,071 1,994,071 Strip Mall 346.92 426.24 215.30 645,827 645,827 Total 6,685.19 3,367.40 2,047.67 14,586,813 14,586,813 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 10 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 214 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Office Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Office Park 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Quality Restaurant 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Strip Mall 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 11 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 215 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,560.599 2 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,560.599 2 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 12 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 216 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 4.64495e +006 0.0251 0.2277 0.1913 1.3700e- 003 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 247.8721 247.8721 4.7500e- 003 4.5400e- 003 249.3451 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 695237 3.7500e- 003 0.0341 0.0286 2.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 0.0000 37.1005 37.1005 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 37.3210 Office Park 111460 6.0000e- 004 5.4600e- 003 4.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.9479 5.9479 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 5.9833 Quality Restaurant 4.12708e +006 0.0223 0.2023 0.1699 1.2100e- 003 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.2366 220.2366 4.2200e- 003 4.0400e- 003 221.5453 Strip Mall 17050 9.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9099 0.9099 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9153 Total 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 13 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 217 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 4.64495e +006 0.0251 0.2277 0.1913 1.3700e- 003 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 247.8721 247.8721 4.7500e- 003 4.5400e- 003 249.3451 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 695237 3.7500e- 003 0.0341 0.0286 2.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 0.0000 37.1005 37.1005 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 37.3210 Office Park 111460 6.0000e- 004 5.4600e- 003 4.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.9479 5.9479 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 5.9833 Quality Restaurant 4.12708e +006 0.0223 0.2023 0.1699 1.2100e- 003 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.2366 220.2366 4.2200e- 003 4.0400e- 003 221.5453 Strip Mall 17050 9.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9099 0.9099 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9153 Total 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 14 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 218 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 7.10972e +006 2,265.308 5 0.0935 0.0194 2,273.412 7 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 97802.9 31.1621 1.2900e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.2736 Office Park 150868 48.0698 1.9800e- 003 4.1000e- 004 48.2418 Quality Restaurant 580579 184.9850 7.6400e- 003 1.5800e- 003 185.6468 Strip Mall 97526 31.0739 1.2800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.1850 Total 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 15 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 219 No Hearths Installed 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 7.10972e +006 2,265.308 5 0.0935 0.0194 2,273.412 7 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 97802.9 31.1621 1.2900e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.2736 Office Park 150868 48.0698 1.9800e- 003 4.1000e- 004 48.2418 Quality Restaurant 580579 184.9850 7.6400e- 003 1.5800e- 003 185.6468 Strip Mall 97526 31.0739 1.2800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.1850 Total 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 16 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 220 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2527 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Total 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 17 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 221 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2527 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Total 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 18 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 222 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Unmitigated 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 90.3243 / 55.36 599.3586 2.9668 0.0744 695.6905 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.81347 / 0.0519236 3.8168 0.0267 6.6000e- 004 4.6787 Office Park 1.74179 / 1.06755 11.5579 0.0572 1.4300e- 003 13.4155 Quality Restaurant 4.82922 / 0.308248 22.6586 0.1582 3.9000e- 003 27.7754 Strip Mall 0.631839 / 0.387256 4.1927 0.0208 5.2000e- 004 4.8665 Total 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 19 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 223 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 90.3243 / 55.36 599.3586 2.9668 0.0744 695.6905 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.81347 / 0.0519236 3.8168 0.0267 6.6000e- 004 4.6787 Office Park 1.74179 / 1.06755 11.5579 0.0572 1.4300e- 003 13.4155 Quality Restaurant 4.82922 / 0.308248 22.6586 0.1582 3.9000e- 003 27.7754 Strip Mall 0.631839 / 0.387256 4.1927 0.0208 5.2000e- 004 4.8665 Total 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 20 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 224 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Unmitigated 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 472.63 95.9396 5.6699 0.0000 237.6863 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 31.89 6.4734 0.3826 0.0000 16.0375 Office Park 9.11 1.8493 0.1093 0.0000 4.5814 Quality Restaurant 14.52 2.9474 0.1742 0.0000 7.3021 Strip Mall 8.96 1.8188 0.1075 0.0000 4.5060 Total 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 21 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 225 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 472.63 95.9396 5.6699 0.0000 237.6863 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 31.89 6.4734 0.3826 0.0000 16.0375 Office Park 9.11 1.8493 0.1093 0.0000 4.5814 Quality Restaurant 14.52 2.9474 0.1742 0.0000 7.3021 Strip Mall 8.96 1.8188 0.1075 0.0000 4.5060 Total 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 22 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 226 11.0 Vegetation User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 23 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 227 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 508.20 1000sqft 4.32 508,200.00 0 Office Park 9.80 1000sqft 0.00 9,803.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2.68 1000sqft 0.00 2,681.00 0 Quality Restaurant 15.91 1000sqft 0.00 15,915.00 0 Strip Mall 8.53 1000sqft 0.00 8,525.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) Orange County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 1 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 228 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total Project Area = 4.32 ac Construction Phase - Operational Run Only. Off-road Equipment - Operational Run Only. Trips and VMT - Operational Run Only. Area Mitigation - Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates based on 2002 EIR Traffic Study & ITE 6th Edition Rates CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 2 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 229 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,800.00 9,803.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,680.00 2,681.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 15,910.00 15,915.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 8,530.00 8,525.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 11.67 4.32 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.20 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 2.37 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.19 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 2.37 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 49.97 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.98 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 65.92 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.98 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 25.24 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 9.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.17 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 11.01 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 40.67 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 3 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 230 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 4 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 231 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Energy 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 3,072.666 2 3,072.666 2 0.1155 0.0313 3,084.869 8 Mobile 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 109.0285 0.0000 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1989 610.3855 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Total 3.7648 6.7775 18.9581 0.0670 5.5319 0.1012 5.6331 1.4814 0.0971 1.5786 140.2274 9,584.358 8 9,724.586 3 10.0491 0.1121 10,009.23 02 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 5 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 232 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Energy 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 3,072.666 2 3,072.666 2 0.1155 0.0313 3,084.869 8 Mobile 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 109.0285 0.0000 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.1989 610.3855 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Total 3.7648 6.7775 18.9581 0.0670 5.5319 0.1012 5.6331 1.4814 0.0971 1.5786 140.2274 9,584.358 8 9,724.586 3 10.0491 0.1121 10,009.23 02 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/28/2020 1/27/2020 5 0 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 6 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 233 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 7 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 234 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 8 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 235 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 9 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 236 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 Unmitigated 1.4899 6.3071 18.5559 0.0641 5.5319 0.0654 5.5973 1.4814 0.0614 1.5428 0.0000 5,901.293 6 5,901.293 6 0.2605 0.0000 5,907.805 9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Office Building 4,624.62 1,204.43 498.04 11,424,944 11,424,944 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)174.66 212.23 176.67 245,733 245,733 Office Park 107.90 23.23 9.60 276,238 276,238 Quality Restaurant 1,431.10 1,501.27 1148.07 1,994,071 1,994,071 Strip Mall 346.92 426.24 215.30 645,827 645,827 Total 6,685.19 3,367.40 2,047.67 14,586,813 14,586,813 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 10 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 237 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Office Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Office Park 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Quality Restaurant 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Strip Mall 0.555968 0.043848 0.210359 0.116378 0.016765 0.005795 0.025008 0.016160 0.001677 0.001586 0.004867 0.000586 0.001002 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 11 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 238 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,560.599 2 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,560.599 2 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 12 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 239 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 4.64495e +006 0.0251 0.2277 0.1913 1.3700e- 003 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 247.8721 247.8721 4.7500e- 003 4.5400e- 003 249.3451 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 695237 3.7500e- 003 0.0341 0.0286 2.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 0.0000 37.1005 37.1005 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 37.3210 Office Park 111460 6.0000e- 004 5.4600e- 003 4.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.9479 5.9479 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 5.9833 Quality Restaurant 4.12708e +006 0.0223 0.2023 0.1699 1.2100e- 003 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.2366 220.2366 4.2200e- 003 4.0400e- 003 221.5453 Strip Mall 17050 9.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9099 0.9099 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9153 Total 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 13 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 240 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 4.64495e +006 0.0251 0.2277 0.1913 1.3700e- 003 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 247.8721 247.8721 4.7500e- 003 4.5400e- 003 249.3451 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 695237 3.7500e- 003 0.0341 0.0286 2.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 2.5900e- 003 0.0000 37.1005 37.1005 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 37.3210 Office Park 111460 6.0000e- 004 5.4600e- 003 4.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.9479 5.9479 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 5.9833 Quality Restaurant 4.12708e +006 0.0223 0.2023 0.1699 1.2100e- 003 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 220.2366 220.2366 4.2200e- 003 4.0400e- 003 221.5453 Strip Mall 17050 9.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9099 0.9099 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9153 Total 0.0517 0.4704 0.3951 2.8200e- 003 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0000 512.0670 512.0670 9.8100e- 003 9.3900e- 003 515.1099 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 14 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 241 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 7.10972e +006 2,265.308 5 0.0935 0.0194 2,273.412 7 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 97802.9 31.1621 1.2900e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.2736 Office Park 150868 48.0698 1.9800e- 003 4.1000e- 004 48.2418 Quality Restaurant 580579 184.9850 7.6400e- 003 1.5800e- 003 185.6468 Strip Mall 97526 31.0739 1.2800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.1850 Total 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 15 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 242 No Hearths Installed 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 7.10972e +006 2,265.308 5 0.0935 0.0194 2,273.412 7 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 97802.9 31.1621 1.2900e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.2736 Office Park 150868 48.0698 1.9800e- 003 4.1000e- 004 48.2418 Quality Restaurant 580579 184.9850 7.6400e- 003 1.5800e- 003 185.6468 Strip Mall 97526 31.0739 1.2800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 31.1850 Total 2,560.599 2 0.1057 0.0219 2,569.759 9 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 16 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 243 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2527 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Total 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 17 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 244 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2527 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Total 2.2231 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0135 0.0135 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0144 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 18 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 245 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Unmitigated 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 90.3243 / 55.36 599.3586 2.9668 0.0744 695.6905 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.81347 / 0.0519236 3.8168 0.0267 6.6000e- 004 4.6787 Office Park 1.74179 / 1.06755 11.5579 0.0572 1.4300e- 003 13.4155 Quality Restaurant 4.82922 / 0.308248 22.6586 0.1582 3.9000e- 003 27.7754 Strip Mall 0.631839 / 0.387256 4.1927 0.0208 5.2000e- 004 4.8665 Total 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 19 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 246 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 90.3243 / 55.36 599.3586 2.9668 0.0744 695.6905 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.81347 / 0.0519236 3.8168 0.0267 6.6000e- 004 4.6787 Office Park 1.74179 / 1.06755 11.5579 0.0572 1.4300e- 003 13.4155 Quality Restaurant 4.82922 / 0.308248 22.6586 0.1582 3.9000e- 003 27.7754 Strip Mall 0.631839 / 0.387256 4.1927 0.0208 5.2000e- 004 4.8665 Total 641.5844 3.2296 0.0809 746.4266 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 20 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 247 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Unmitigated 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 472.63 95.9396 5.6699 0.0000 237.6863 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 31.89 6.4734 0.3826 0.0000 16.0375 Office Park 9.11 1.8493 0.1093 0.0000 4.5814 Quality Restaurant 14.52 2.9474 0.1742 0.0000 7.3021 Strip Mall 8.96 1.8188 0.1075 0.0000 4.5060 Total 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 21 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 248 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 472.63 95.9396 5.6699 0.0000 237.6863 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 31.89 6.4734 0.3826 0.0000 16.0375 Office Park 9.11 1.8493 0.1093 0.0000 4.5814 Quality Restaurant 14.52 2.9474 0.1742 0.0000 7.3021 Strip Mall 8.96 1.8188 0.1075 0.0000 4.5060 Total 109.0285 6.4434 0.0000 270.1134 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 22 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 249 11.0 Vegetation User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/5/2020 9:53 AMPage 23 of 23 One Broadway Plaza (Entitled Use) - Orange County, Annual 5 - 250 13142-04 AQ & GHG Memo ATTACHMENT B AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS PRESENTED IN THE FEIR 5 - 251 5 - 252 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix March 2020 Appendix B Project Trip Generation Memo 5 - 253 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 254 13141-04 TG Letter March 9, 2020 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. 1103 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 SUBJECT: ONE BROADWAY PLAZA TRIP GENERATION EVALUATION Dear Mr. Mike Harrah: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Trip Generation Evaluation for One Broadway Plaza development which is located on the northeast corner of Broadway and 10th Street in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of this work effort is to assess the potential changes in trip generation associated with the update to the uses proposed for the Project. The Project consists of the development of 402 multifamily residential dwelling units in place of 254,472 square feet of office use. BACKGROUND The Project is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow the development of residential uses (at the density/intensity proposed) for the One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) Specific Development District (SD) 75. Currently, SD75 allows for the development of a 37 -story tower with 518,000 square feet of office uses, a destination restaurant at the top two levels of the tower, and residential uses are not currently permitted. The following trip generation assessment is in support of the proposed addendum to the Environment Impact Report (EIR). CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT The previous Project traffic analysis was prepared in February 2002 One Broadway Plaza EIR Traffic Impact Study, prepared by P&D Consultants, referred to as 2002 Traffic Study). The 2002 Traffic Study evaluated 545,124 square feet of office use within a 37-story building and surrounding rehabilitated structures, which are broken down by use below in Table 1. The Project also includes an 8-level freestanding parking structure with approximately 2,100 parking spaces. TABLE 1: CURRENTLY APPROVED ONE BROADWAY PLAZA LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Square Feet1 Office Building 508,200 Rehabilitated Office 9,803 Retail 8,525 Formal Dining 15,915 Casual Dining 2,681 Total 545,124 1 Source: One Broadway Plaza EIR Traffic Impact Study, P&D Consultants, February 2002. 5 - 255 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 9, 2020 Page 2 of 6 13141-04 TG Letter The trip generation from the 2002 Traffic Study was calculated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition (1997) and the ITE Trip Generation Handbook – An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (October 1998). As shown in Table 2, the 2002 Traffic Study concluded that the Project would generate 6,686 trip-ends per day, with 744 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 819 trips generated during the PM peak hour. TABLE 2: CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PROPOSED PROJECT The Project is proposing to develop a mixed-use development with both residential and office uses at One Broadway Plaza. The Project requires a General Plan Land Use Element amendment to permit residential development within the OBPDC. The One Broadway Plaza building includes 518,000 square feet of office uses. Approximately 50% (254,472 square feet) is proposed for a total of 402 apartment units. Table 3 presents the trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) for the proposed multifamily housing use and the remaining other office, retail, and restaurant uses originally contemplated. The ITE trip generation rate utilized for the multifamily housing is for developments located within City Center Core areas (as opposed to rates for developments within a general urban/suburban setting). The average rates for General Office uses located within City Center Core areas has also been utilized to estimate the trip generation for the office uses proposed in the tower, while the average rates for General Office located within general urban/suburban areas have been used to estimate traffic for the rehabilitated structures. The latest ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide any trip rate data for Specialty Retail, as such, the average rates for the Shopping Center land use (ITE Code 820) have been utilized. Similar to the 2002 Traffic Study, an AM inbound and outbound split is not reported for the Quality Restaurant land use. As such, a 50%/50% split has been assumed for the AM peak hour, consistent with the 2002 Traffic Study. Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Office (Tower)508.200 TSF 600 82 682 110 539 649 4,625 Office (Rehabilitated Structures)9.803 TSF 13 2 15 2 12 14 108 Retail (Tower & Garage)8.525 TSF 11 11 22 9 13 22 347 Casual Dining (Rehabilitated Structures)2.681 TSF 6 6 12 9 6 15 175 Formal Dining (Tower)15.915 TSF 7 6 13 80 39 119 1,432 637 107 744 211 609 819 6,686 1 TSF = thousand square feet 2 Source: One Broadway Plaza EIR Traffic Impact Study Total Project 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5 - 256 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 9, 2020 Page 3 of 6 13141-04 TG Letter TABLE 3: ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES The resulting trip generation for the proposed Project is shown on Table 4. Pass-by reduction assumptions for the shopping center, quality restaurant, and high turnover (sit-down) restaurant uses are consistent with the current ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017). A 5% reduction has also been applied to account for transit mode share, consistent with other projects in the City of Santa Ana. As shown in Table 4, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 3,026 trip-ends per day with 261 AM peak hour trips and 325 PM peak hour trips. ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use 1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (High-Rise)3 DU 222 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.13 0.10 0.23 2.16 General Office4 TSF 710 0.43 0.07 0.50 0.07 0.36 0.43 4.30 General Office5 TSF 710 1.00 0.16 1.16 0.18 0.97 1.15 9.74 Shopping Center TSF 820 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Quality Restaurant 6 TSF 931 0.37 0.37 0.73 5.23 2.57 7.80 83.84 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant TSF 932 5.47 4.47 9.94 6.06 3.71 9.77 112.18 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual , Tenth Edition (2017). 2 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet 3 Based on average rates for developments located within Center City Core areas. 4 Based on average rates for ITE Land Use Code 710 for developments located within Center City Core areas (using 253,728 square feet). Daily trip generation rate not available in ITE Trip Generation Manual . Estimated based on 10 times the PM peak hour. 5 Based on average rates for ITE Land Use Code 710. 6 ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide in/out split for the AM peak hour; as such, a 50/50 split has been assumed. Daily 5 - 257 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 9, 2020 Page 4 of 6 13141-04 TG Letter TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON As shown in Table 5, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 3,660 fewer trip-ends per day with 483 fewer AM and 494 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the currently approved Project. This equates to a 65% reduction during the AM, and 60% reduction during the PM peak hours and a 55% reduction to daily trip-ends. TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) (Tower)402 DU 34 55 89 54 39 93 868 Office (Tower)253.728 TSF 109 18 127 17 92 109 1,092 Office (Rehabilitated Structures)9.803 TSF 10 2 12 2 9 11 96 Shopping Center (Tower & Garage)8.525 TSF 5 3 8 16 17 33 322 0 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -110 5 3 8 11 12 23 212 Quality Restaurant (Tower)15.915 TSF 6 6 12 83 41 124 1,334 0 0 0 -18 -18 -36 -588 6 6 12 65 23 88 746 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (Rehabilitated Structures)2.681 TSF 15 12 27 16 10 26 302 0 0 0 -4 -4 -8 -130 15 12 27 12 6 18 172 -9 -5 -14 -8 -9 -17 -160 170 91 261 153 172 325 3,026 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Proposed Project Total Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 44%): Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 43%): High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Total: Quality Restaurant Total: Pass-by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34%): Shopping Center Total: Transit Mode Share Reduction (5%): Project In Out Total In Out Total Daily Currently Approved1 637 107 744 211 609 819 6,686 Proposed Project 2 170 91 261 153 172 325 3,026 Variance -467 -16 -483 -58 -437 -494 -3,660 1 Trip generation based on the currently approved Project per the 2002 Traffic Study (see Table 2). 2 Proposed Project trip generation (see Table 4). AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5 - 258 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 9, 2020 Page 5 of 6 13141-04 TG Letter CITY OF SANTA ANA VMT SCREENING As stated in the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (September 2019), projects may be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis if they have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and would consequently result in a less-than-significant transportation impact. In other words, the project should have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) / Sustainable Communities Strategy’s (SCS) in order to be initially screened out. Projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) and low-VMT generating Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) have the potential to reduce VMT/SP and are consistent with the RTP/SCS. As illustrated in Appendices A and B of the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the proposed Project is located in a TPA and low-VMT generating TAZ. The Project is proposed to develop residential, office, retail, and restaurant uses. The mixed-use nature of the Project promotes low-VMT generation within the TAZ as well as the overall City. As discussed with the City of Santa Ana Planning Department, an increase of approximately 5,406 households is projected for the City based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) from the base year of 2016 to the forecasted year of 2045. As such, the households proposed by the Project would be consistent with the growth anticipated in the RTP/SCS for the City. Orange County currently experiences a high demand and low supply of households in the region and the proposed Project would have the potential to serve the regional demand for households and is therefore consistent with the goals and objectives of the RTP/SCS. CONCLUSION Appendix B-1 of the 2017 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) identifies a change of three percent or more to the level of service (LOS) standard as a significant impact. The AM and PM peak hour intersection operations analysis are used to identify an intersection’s LOS during the peak hours. Since the proposed Project would result in a net reduction to the AM and PM peak hour trips in comparison to currently approved Project, the impacts are anticipated to be the same or less than those previously identified at off-site study area intersections. Therefore, no additional traffic-related impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed development that is currently being contemplated in addition to those previously disclosed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5987. 5 - 259 Mr. Mike Harrah Caribou Industries, Inc. March 9, 2020 Page 6 of 6 13141-04 TG Letter Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Charlene So, PE Haseeb Qureshi Associate Principal Associate Principal 5 - 260 13141-04 TG Letter 5 - 261 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix March 2020 Appendix C Water and Sewer Studies 5 - 262 O NE B RO A D WA Y P LA Z A P RO J E CT E I R A D DE N DU M CI T Y O F S A NT A A NA Appendix PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 5 - 263 WATER AND SEWER COMPARISON For ONE BROADWAY PLAZA Prepared for: CARIBOU INDUSTRIES, INC. 1103 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Prepared by: DMc ENGINEERING CIVIL ▪ SURVEYING ▪ PLANNING ▪ CONSTRUCTION 18 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.753.9393 Derek J. McGregor, PE, PLS March 3, 2020 JN1262-05 5 - 264 WATER & SEWER COMPARISON ONE BROADWAY PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. CURRENT ENTITLED CONDITION .................................................................. 2 III. PROPOSED REVISED ENTITLED CONDITION ............................................. 3 IV. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 4 5 - 265 WATER & SEWER COMPARISON ONE BROADWAY PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 1 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to compare the current entitled water and wastewater demands for the reuse project titled One Broadway Plaza located at 10th & Broadway in Santa Ana to the proposed revised entitled condition’s water and wastewater demands. The current entitled project does not include a residential component and the proposed revised entitled project will include residential units. Multiple documents and data were reviewed in preparation of this comparison that included: Final Environmental Impact Report for One Broadway Plaza, City of Santa Ana Water and Sewer Design Guidelines, City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR, the City of Santa Ana Water Master Plan, the City of Santa Ana Sewer Master Plan and regional generation factors. 5 - 266 WATER & SEWER COMPARISON ONE BROADWAY PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 2 II. CURRENT ENTITLED CONDITION The property as currently entitled, consists of a mixed-use high-rise with offices & executive office suits and various other uses. The section below describes the current entitled demand for domestic water and wastewater service. WATER SERVICE There is a 12” water line adjacent to the project site in N. Broadway. Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor (1) Area (square feet) Daily water Usage (gpd) Mixed-use 0.09 gpd/sf 518,003 sf 46,621 Notes: (1) Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.09 gpd/sf) As shown above current entitled water demand at the project site is estimated to be approximately 46,621 gallons per day (gpd). WASTEWATER SERVICE There is a 15” sewer line adjacent to the project site in N. Broadway. Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor (1) Area (square feet) Average Sewer Flow (gpd) Mixed-use 0.0765 gpd/sf 518,003 sf 39,628 Notes: (1) Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.0765 gpd/sf) As shown above existing average sewer flow at the project site is estimated to be approximately 39,628 gallons per day (gpd). 5 - 267 WATER & SEWER COMPARISON ONE BROADWAY PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 3 III. PROPOSED REVISED ENTITLED CONDITION The proposed revised entitled project consists of a mixed-use high-rise with offices & executive office suits and various other uses along with residential apartments. The section below describes the proposed revised entitled project’s demand for domestic water and wastewater service. WATER SERVICE Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor Project DU, capita or Square Footage Daily water Usage (gpd) Offices (Commercial) 0.09 gpd/sf (1) 259,002 sf 23,311 Apartments (High-Rise Residential) – 415 Apartments 110 gpd/capita (2) 440 capita (3) 48,400 Total Proposed Revised Entitled Water Demand 71,711 Total Current Entitled Water Flow (46,621) Project Net Water Demand (Proposed-Current) + 25,090 Notes: (1) Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.09 gpd/sf) (2) Unit Water Demand Factors was taken from the City of Santa Ana Water and Sewer Design Guidelines (110 gpd/capita) (3) Capacity was assumed at 1 person per bedroom (440 capita) for the 415 apartments As shown above, the proposed revised entitlements daily water demand is estimated to be approximately 71,711 gallons per day (gpd). WASTEWATER SERVICE Land Use Unit Water Demand Factor (1) Project DU, capita or Square Footage Total Average Wastewater Generation (gpd) Total Peak Flow Wastewater Generation (cfs) (2) Offices (Commercial) 0.0765 gpd/sf 259,002 sf 19,814 gpd 0.09 cfs Apartments (Residential) 127.5 gpd/unit 415 units 52,913 gpd 0.25 cfs Total Proposed Revised Entitled Wastewater Demand 72,727 gpd 0.34cfs Total Current Entitled Wastewater Flow (39,628) gpd (0.18) cfs Project Net Wastewater Flow (Proposed-Current) + 33,099 gpd + 0.16 cfs Notes: (1) Unit Water Demand Factor was taken from the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code EIR (0.0765 gpd/sf & 127.5 gpd/unit) (2) Peak Flow = 3* Average Daily Flow As shown above, the proposed revised entitlements average sewer flow is estimated to be approximately 72,727 gallons per day (gpd). 5 - 268 WATER & SEWER COMPARISON ONE BROADWAY PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 4 IV. REFERENCES 1. City of Santa Ana Sewer Master Plan Final Report. Santa Ana: City of Santa Ana Public Works, December 2016. 2. City of Santa Ana 2017 Water Master Plan. Santa Ana: City of Santa Ana Public Works, January 2018. 3. City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities. Santa Ana: City of Santa Ana Public Works, March 2017. 4. City of Santa Ana Disinfection Guidelines for Water Facilities. Santa Ana: City of Santa Ana Public Works, March 2017. 5. City of Santa Ana Engineering CAD Standards Version 2.1. Santa Ana: City of Santa Ana Public Works, February 2010. 6. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR. PBS&J, May 2010. 7. Final Environmental Impact Report for One Broadway Plaza. P&D Consultants, August 2004. 5 - 269 EXHIBIT 11 5 - 270 Page 1 of 5 One Broadway Plaza Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Residential Use Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting-Meeting Minutes February 19, 2020 Original Mike’s Restaurant 5:45 pm- 8:30 pm actual time of meeting (6:00 pm to 7:00 pm scheduled) 5:45 pm Michael Harrah was greeting guest and having one-on-one conversations prior to the presentation. Guests arriving were to Sign-in (see attached sign-in sheet). Twenty four- 20” x 30” Color Presentation Boards (see attached) representing the project with elevations, sections and floor plans were on display throughout the presentation area and guests were invited to browse, review the boards and ask questions while enjoying appetizers prior to the presentation. William Beaubeaux, the developer’s architect, met the guests and walked several of them to the presentation boards and answered questions. 6:15 pm Michael Harrah, the Developer, officially opened the meeting and started the presentation. Michael shared his 30-year incredible history with the city of Santa Ana, past major projects that include OCSA, Historic Masonic Temple, Historic Original Mike’s, The Pavilion, Ambrosia Restaurant, OCEAA, 888 Adaptive Reuse, 625 OC Register Site, Historic Twist Basler House and several other projects within the city. He shared the high lights, design and requirements for One Broadway Plaza. He also stated that One Broadway Plaza was an already approved project and received a certified EIR. This meeting was for information on an amendment to the SD to include residential. He described the project concept of “Mix-use” and explained the necessity of the residential component to the local community. He explained the better than half reduction of traffic from the previously approved project and the ratio of residents to office personal. He also stated that the added residential would reduce pollution by 30% and traffic by 60%from the previously approved project. The added residential would promote local Business, and substantially increase retail sales and tax dollars for the city, and increase sales for the local Downtown retailers. . The Client base would most likely be young professionals. “It’s our turn for Santa Ana to be the ultimate Urban Capitol city of Orange County. To do good things for good people and help the less fortunate.” (MFH) After the presentation, Michael Harrah opened the floor for a question and answer period. Comments, Questions and Answers from the presentation: C: Statement on local business on Main street, Various stores and restaurants in the downtown and how Santa Ana has a greater percentage over all of Orange County 5 - 271 Page 2 of 5 Q: Thank you for the visuals; curious of the separation of the affordable housing from the work force housing and will Section * vouchers be accepted in this project? A: Mike stated that the mix of affordable will be addressed but hasn’t been discussed at this time. C: Please Refrain from referring Section 8 participants as drug users. Comments on the concept behind Section 8 and how the program is to help people get back on their feet A: Mike stated that he was not referring section 8 as drug users, he was quoting the previous gentleman’s comment that we need to make sure that management has a process to avoid questionable residents. The process of inclusionary housing still needs to be discussed with the city. Q: There are many local artists and performers in the community. Will they be allowances or special rates for local talent to use the facility? A: Yes, Mike stated that he has a long history working with the community and artist groups and would be willing to work with them in the new building. Q: Will there be enough parking for residents, parking for the theater and restaurants? A: yes, we will have a 2,400-car parking structure as part of the development. Q: What plans are made for community benefits? A: Yes, the restaurants and theaters will be open to the public as well as public plazas with water features Q: Is the residential a new request for the project? A: Yes, it will be an amendment to the existing SD. The Process is the Sunshine Meeting, Planning Commission, then City Council for review. Q: How are you going to pay for the project and why there’s no longer the 50% pre-lease requirements? A: Financing is in place. C: Vince discussed the Development Agreement and the previous requirements that had expired with the development agreement, but because of the referendum the residents of the City of Santa Ana voted for the project, and this vote superseded the development agreement. The project is approved, the developer is now asking to modify the SD for residential. The purpose of this meeting is to present the residential amendment to the SD. 5 - 272 Page 3 of 5 Q: Will you get a tax break from the City for affordable housing? A: I don’t know Q: What is the rent rate for the apartments? A: The rent rates have not been established at this time. Q: What is the rent rate for the low-income affordable units? A: This will be established by the City of Santa Ana housing formula. Q: Affordable Housing must be disbursed throughout the building. How is it that this project can separate the floors? A: Vince stated that this presentation is for concept of the added residential, the details of the mix will be discussed further in the process Q: Will there be incentives for the residents of Live/Work so they can stay within the building? A: That will be discussed with the different retail groups, but I am sure there will be workable to this idea. C: Haseeb from Urban Crossroads explained the trip rates for the building and how the reduction of trips was calculated. He explained the ratio of employees’ verses residents for the same square footage and how the overall fewer trips are calculated for residents. Q: How many parking stalls are provided for the residential units? A: One stall per studio unit. And two stalls for two bedroom. Q: It’s common in Santa Ana for a lot more people to occupy an apartment how will this be controlled? A: The management will control the number of occupants per unit. There will be regulations established for the lease agreements for the units. Q: Is there a plan for public Art and water features for this project? A: Yes, the design has several areas for public art an d plazas with water features. Q: What are the plans for park space, are there locations for parks? 5 - 273 Page 4 of 5 A: The project is designed with large public plazas opened to the public to enjoy. C: Gentleman explained that his English is not so good, but the meeting is good and the place the public needs to express their concerns will be at the planning commission meeting. Most important thing is to work with the planning commission and the developer. C: “I live in French Park and added parking in this parking structure is greatly welcomed needed in our community. I think as neighbors, we work together with the developer. He is bringing great things to our city. It is time to work together to benefit from this project and to benefit the neighbors. I think it’s a wonderful idea to have people live and work in the building. We need to work together.” Q: How many extra parking spaces will be in the garage? A: 1,200. Q: Will there be special rates in the structure for teachers or provisions in the parking garage? A: Yes, we have already reduced the parking rate to school teachers by 50%. C: “Mike has cleaned up our neighborhoods and has restored and preserved more buildings in our downtown than any other developer. He has taken a lot of boarded up buildings and cleaned them up”. C: “17th and Main progress is happening. Things are in place and helping the community; all which are scrutinized with the code. Yes, this is a great project.” C: “The city has seen a lot of change. I won’t deny that Mike Harrah has done a lot.” C: I support exactly what he said, I am an Architect and fully support the live/work concept. This will add a new component to the traffic issue. A: Mixed-use is the future. Amazon is looking at this building as living areas for their employees and work just down the street at 625 N Grand, as well as live in the apartment and work in the building. C: “It hurts my heart that the poor people have to live on the lower floors or not at all in this building. Its good intentions. But how is the ratio determined. My humble opinion” C: “I would like to piggyback that comment. Housing is changing and market rate determines the rates. This issue will need to be examined.” 5 - 274 Page 5 of 5 C: Vince stated that the market rate for inclusionary housing is based on 15%. Rate is determined by the income level of the county. Q: You mentioned that this is an amendment to the EIR. What is the process? A: We are now doing studies on traffic, air pollution, water and sewer. Once these studies are completed the City of Santa Ana will review the impacts with the existing EIR, a screen check and peer review and present the professional engineering findings to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. Q: We have a concern that the occupants will exceed the number the units are intended. We have 10 people living in one-bedroom apartments now. A: The Building Manager will be responsible to monitor the number of allowable occupants for each unit and will have the limit of occupants as a part of their lease agreement. Q: I have a concern of crosswalks. Right now, for many years, there has been a major need for a cross walk on Sycamore between Civic Center drive and 10th Street. Kids are crossing in unmarked areas and I have been trying to get the city to put a crosswalk there with no response. This is a very dangerous situation that needs to be addressed now. A: I agree, I see this problem every day and if I have to, I will paint a crosswalk for you. In closing, Michael Harrah thanked everyone for their attendance and interest in the One Broadway Plaza project. He is very excited to work together and make Santa Ana a better place for everyone to live, work and play. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm, last guest left at 8:00 pm 5 - 275